Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE HOLD (Major Sir JAMES EDMONDSON) re ported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 (ORDERS) (ANSWER TO ADDRESSES).

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE HOLD reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as followeth:

I have received your Addresses praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1941, and the Government of India (Scheduled Castes) (Amendment) Order, 1941, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRAND MUFTI.

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information of the present whereabouts of the Grand Mufti; and what action is being taken to prevent any subversive activities by him in British mandated territories?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): As regards the first part of the Question, my right hon. Friend has at present no statement to make. As to the second part, my hon. and gallant Friend can be sure that all possible steps are being taken to pre vent intrigues by the Mufti or any other

agent of the Axis in the areas for the security of which we are responsible.

Mr. Mander: Can my hon. Friend say why it is that this rascal always escapes the net?

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I ask my hon. Friend if the associates of the Mufti are being treated as Axis agents?

Mr. Law: I think the Multi and his friends are being watched as carefully as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR GERMANY (STATEMENT, PRESIDENT BENES).

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the copy sent to him of a statement in a lecture by President Benes, of Czechoslovakia, at Aberdeen University, on 10th November, to the effect that post-war Germany should receive some form of colonial compensation; and whether he will state the attitude of His Majesty's Government to such an idea?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has seen the report to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. There seems to be some doubt whether the report accurately represented Dr. Benes's words. In any case, His Majesty's Government take no responsibility for anything that may have been said on that occasion.

Captain Graham: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if His Majesty's Government will exercise their persuasive powers to prevent President Benes from making similar incautious remarks in future?

Mr. Law: His Majesty's Government cannot be responsible for what is said by the heads of foreign Governments in this country.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that Allied States are perfectly free to express their views in any way they please in this country?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PATAGONIA (WELSH SETTLEMENT).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether


the British Council in their contacts with the British community in the Argentine have got in touch with the Welsh settlement in Patagonia?

Mr. Law: No, Sir. The British Council has not so far had occasion to establish contact with this community, but the pos sibilities will be examined.

Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the British Council that they arrange that films depicting life in this country and especially in Wales be shown to the Welsh community in Patagonia?

Mr. Law: I will certainly take up that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN PRISONERS OF WAR.

Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the International Red Cross have been or will be approached by His Majesty's Government to secure inspections of those camps where Russian prisoners of war are held in German-occupied territory, and where the members of the International Brigade are held at Palencia and in Vichy France?

Mr. Law: As regards the proposal that the International Red Cross should be approached regarding Russian prisoners of war, I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) on 19th November, in which my right hon. Friend said that this was a matter for the Governments concerned to decide. As regards the second part of the Question, it would not be appropriate for His Majesty's Government to approach the International Red Cross regarding the members of the Inter national Brigade, since no British subjects are involved.

Mr. Wedgwood: Arising out of that answer, did not the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, when he last replied to this Question, say that as regards the International Brigade he was approaching the American Government to see whether they could do anything in the matter, and has any reply yet been received from the American Government, and is it not a fact that the Russian objection to the Inter national Red Cross is that it is situated at Rome?

Mr. Law: As regards the latter point, the International Red Cross is not situated at Rome but at Geneva. With regard to the first point, my right hon. Friend said last week, I think, that he was in consultation with the United States Government, but I do not think there have yet been any developments.

Mr. Wedgwood: As regards the quesion of prisoners of war, while it is, of course, the primary duty of the Government concerned, is it not possible for His Majesty's Government to use their good offices to do something, for they are suffering fearful hardships at present?

Mr. Law: His Majesty's Government are always willing to use their good offices, but this is a matter which concerns the Russian Government.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is it not clear from M. Molotov's declarations that the Russian Government are very anxious about their prisoners?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

ATLANTIC FERRY COMMAND.

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the harm done by the circulation of stories in the Press that the Atlantic ferry service is incompetent and inefficient; and what steps his publicity staff is taking to put an end to such harmful stories?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I am most anxious that the Ferry Command of the Royal Air Force should be given full and public credit for the excellent work which it is doing often in hazardous conditions. The criticisms contained in the articles to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers are, however, vague, general and unsubstantiated and it is not possible to deal with them in detail.

BOMBER COMMAND (NIGHT ATTACKS, GERMANY).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Air, on how many nights in the month of November, 1941, aircraft of Bomber Command were able to attack targets in Germany; and on how many nights the targets attacked were ports or harbours on the German coast?

Captain Balfour: Aircraft of Bomber Command attacked Germany on 10 nights during November. On six occasions the


targets were in coastal areas and included ports and harbours.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is there any recorded precedent for such bad weather for night-flying as we have had this year?

Captain Balfour: I cannot compare the meteorological statistics of this winter in relation to past winters, but I may say that the weather affects both sides, and, apart from minor attacks on shipping, and mine-laying operations, the enemy made only three attacks of any weight on objectives in this country in November.

REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ORGANISATION.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists amongst Royal Air Force fitters, who are being kept idle on account of maintenance work being farmed out to civilian contractors who do the work of these Royal Air Force men and use the facilities of the Royal Air Force aerodromes for this purpose; and whether he has any statement to make thereon?

Captain Balfour: I am not aware of any considerable dissatisfaction among Royal Air Force personnel at the present system, and I cannot agree that the position generally is as suggested by the hon. Member. Ordinary day-to-day maintenance work at Royal Air Force units is carried out by Royal Air Force personnel. Work beyond the capacity of the Royal Air Force Unit is undertaken by the civilian repair organisation which is ad ministered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production. This division of labour was arranged in order to give flexibility in the repair and maintenance organisation. It may, of course, sometimes happen that civilian workmen are working at a unit where, for operational reasons, Royal Air Force personnel are not at the time fully occupied. The arrangement which is kept under constant review has, however, generally proved its value.

Mr. Edwards: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that skilled fitters in the R.A.F. have to supervise the maintenance work done by trainees, and very often have to occupy their spare time in sweeping out the hangars, while trainees are doing the work they have been trained to do?

Captain Balfour: I think my hon. Friend is misinformed. The Civilian Repair Organisation men are not trainees but skilled men. The training of Royal Air Force fitters is of a general character, and does not include the specialised training in certain directions which is necessary for the full maintenance of the different types of aircraft.

Mr. Edwards: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend be good enough to look at some correspondence I have in connection with this matter?

Captain Balfour: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that there is at the present time an excess of R.A.F. fitters who might be employed in stead of some of the civilians?

Captain Balfour: That is a different question.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production what are the financial arrangements in regard to the employment of civilian contractors on aircraft maintenance work on Royal Air Force stations?

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): Broadly, the arrangements referred to provide for a fair and reasonable price for the work carried out. The precise arrangements vary according to the actual work done.

Mr. Edwards: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether or not any of this work is done on the old basis of cost plus 10 per cent.?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: When we have an engine to repair, it is done on a pre-arranged price, because we know that we have to strip it and put it together again. In the case of a machine which is strained or damaged, we cannot make a price before we start to pull it to pieces, because we do not know what damage has been done. Consequently, it is difficult to make a fixed price for this sort of repairs. In these cases it is done, I am afraid, on those lines.

Mr. Edwards: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is aware that a maintenance unit is being set up on a South Wales aerodrome by a private contractor, namely, Messrs. E. Curran, thereby abandoning the use of skilled


Royal Air Force fitters, who will in future be solely used for the purpose of super intending civilian trainees; and whether he has any statement to make thereon?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not completely informed as to the facts. What is happening at the aerodrome which he has in mind is that facilities are being created for the carrying out by a civilian firm of repair of aircraft which is beyond the capacity of the Royal Air Force personnel on the station. It is not the case that this personnel will be responsible for super intending the work done by the civilian firm referred to.

Mr. Edwards: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House whether or not this firm has ever had any experience at all in the repair of aircraft?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I dare say not, but there are plenty of firms who have not had experience yet who soon will have.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the difficulty of costing repair work, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider making a national repair service, as has been done so successfully by the Admiralty?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: We have a national repair service, but where there are firms existing we use them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would it not be more economical to use the national service?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The matter of geography comes in, and the movement of machines.

MARRIED PERSONNEL

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air what regulations have been issued to permit husbands and wives serving in the Royal Air Force and Women's Auxiliary Air Force to serve on the same station?

Captain Balfour: Subject to the exigencies of the Service, W.A.A.F. personnel married to R.A.F. personnel are permitted to serve on the same station as their husbands provided both are either officers or in the ranks. Wives are not, however, allowed to serve under the immediate orders of their husbands or vice versa.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether air men's wives in receipt of marriage allowances may continue to draw these allowances if they join the Women's Auxiliary Air Force?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir.

MESSING.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the practice, in certain units of the Royal Air Force in the Middle East and at home, of officer-pilots and sergeant-pilots messing together meets with his approval; and whether he is satisfied that this practice is not subversive of discipline?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will appreciate that the practice to which he refers is only adopted where facilities are limited, making it impracticable to run organised messes. The general policy is one of maintaining separate messes for officers, N.C.Os. and airmen.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain how it is that when these men, who are flying shoulder to shoulder and facing the same dangers, come down to the ground in this country they should be despatched one to the players entrance and one to the gentle men's entrance?

Captain Balfour: I would not admit at all that both are not gentlemen; I could explain to the hon. Gentleman as he re quests, but not within the length of a supplementary reply.

Mr. Ammon: Is not this another case like the giving of differential awards for like services?

Dr. Russell Thomas: In view of the fact that sergeant-pilots and pilot-officers perform almost the same duties, what is the object of making appointments to the rank of sergeant-pilot?

Captain Balfour: At the present time we have both sergeant-pilots and pilot-officers. It might be embarrassing and difficult for the N.C.O. pilots to meet the higher cost of messing in the officers' mess.

Captain McEwen: Is not discipline a very important consideration also?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir.

GERMAN PRISONERS (ATTEMPTED ESCAPE.)

Mr. McNeil: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the two Nazi prisoners of war who attempted to make their escape in a British Services aeroplane?

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for Air how it was possible for two German airmen, who escaped from a North of England prison camp, to obtain possession of a Royal Air Force aeroplane as a means of escape from this country; how did they gain access to the aerodrome; and is it customary to leave, in time of war, aeroplanes unguarded?

Captain Balfour: The incident is still under investigation. If the hon. Members will repeat their Questions in a fortnight's time, I hope by then to be in a position to make a statement.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Does it not seem that British aerodromes are still not properly protected, in spite of representations constantly made to the Government by the House?

Captain Balfour: If the hon. Member will wait and see, in a fortnight's time he will probably get an answer.

STOLEN CAR (OFFICIAL PAPERS.)

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement concerning the loss of a motor car at Notting Hill, which contained important confidential specifications for the Air Ministry; and what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of such carelessness?

Captain Balfour: I am advised that the specifications to which the hon. Member refers are not secret or confidential, and are well known in the paint trade; they were lost by an employee of a firm of paint manufacturers when his car was stolen. The attention of the firm is, how ever, being drawn to the undesirability of leaving any official papers of this type unattended in private motor-cars.

Mr. Ammon: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that only a short time ago he gave a very similar answer in respect of a very similar happening, namely, that papers had been left by someone who was a member of a private firm?

Captain Balfour: I said that the papers in this case were not in any way confidential, but that nevertheless we are drawing the firm's attention to the un desirability of leaving any papers in un attended cars.

Mr. Ammon: I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend is not seeking any merit from the fact that the papers were not confidential?

AIR SERVICE, LISBON-UNITED KINGDOM (PRIORITIES).

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that on the civil air-line between Lisbon and this country available space has recently been allocated to people who are making no direct contribution to the war effort, whilst important officials are unable to obtain space; and whether he will explain what system of priorities is in operation?

Captain Balfour: Priority is given in the civil air service between Lisbon and the United Kingdom to persons who are certified by the appropriate Government Departments to be travelling on business directly connected with the war. Nobody unless so certified can obtain a priority passage. Nobody can obtain a place if there is any priority passenger who requires space in the aircraft. Sometimes there are seats which are not required for priority travellers. Passengers are then given seats who, although not travelling for official purposes, have compassionate or other urgent private reasons or public reasons not directly connected with the war for using air transport. Similar opportunities for such passengers occur from time to time when there is a last moment cancellation of a priority passage.

Mr. Edwards: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seen a Press cutting in which it was stated that while men on important official business were held up for several weeks at Lisbon, an Ambassador's butler was allowed to travel on the plane? Would he say further whether, in view of the necessity of keeping very close and rapid contact with America, any steps are being taken to provide extra facilities?

Captain Balfour: As regards the first part of the Question, I did receive a Press cutting. I will make inquiries as to the


particular case to which the hon. Member refers, but I have endeavoured to give a general picture, which is administered rigorously and without favour. As regards the second part of the Question, we are seeing what can be done with the limited resources which are available for the manufacture and acquisition of civil aircraft. We are also seeing whether we can get greater frequency of services out of present aircraft. Both of these will help the existing facilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

ANTI-SOVIET FILMS.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that a number of anti-Soviet films are on exhibit in this country; and whether, in view of their slanderous character and inaccuracies, he will take steps to stop their being exhibited?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): The Ministry of Information has no power to stop films except on grounds of military security. If, however, the hon. Member will give me a list of the films he has in mind, I will have inquiries made about them.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that these films are deliberately produced as pro-Fascist and anti-Soviet films, and are still being shown? In view of the wide powers which the Government have, surely they should be in a position to stop these pro-Fascist films.

Mr. Bracken: May I remind the hon. Member of what I have said to him? The Ministry of Information has been given no power by Parliament to stop films except on the ground of national security. I am not going to act as a dictator when I have not any powers.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the Minister aware that though the Ministry has not that power, the Government have the power to make an order? Could he ask for such an order to be made?

Mr. Bracken: I have not asked for an order to be made because I have asked my hon. Friend to give me the names of the films.

PROPAGANDA TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Information whether he is satisfied that the staff provided for broadcasting to Italy

by the British Broadcasting Corporation is adequate for the task; and that sufficient time is allocated for the Italian broad casting service?

Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the evident importance of propaganda to Italy at the present time, will the Minister take this matter personally in hand, and assure himself that it is not being treated as the Cinderella of the services?

Mr. Bracken: I can assure the hon. Member that it is not being treated as the Cinderella. It is perhaps the best of our broadcast services.

Mr. Mander: Is the B.B.C. perfectly free to attack the existing regime in Italy?

Mr. Bracken: Certainly, and it is done.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the B.B.C. attack that regime by sending congratulations to the King of Italy?

Mr. Bracken: I have answered that Question previously.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Information whether he can make a statement concerning the accommodation provided for the foreign services of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and whether he is satisfied with the office space, studios, rehearsal-rooms and telephone facilities provided for them?

Mr. Bracken: Since the foreign service of the B.B.C. is still rapidly expanding, it is not easy to meet its demands upon accommodation. Considerable additional accommodation has been acquired since the matter was last raised in the House, and the necessary alterations and installations are nearing completion. Additional telephone facilities are also being installed.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister do what he can to accelerate these improvements, and bear in mind that, while some sections have been improved, others are working in conditions of squalor and that the telephone facilities are a perfect scandal?

Mr. Bracken: The last observation is practically a reproduction of what I said to the officials responsible for telephone accommodation.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Does this also apply to the German section, which is


doing an excellent job of work under the most appalling and scandalous conditions of accommodation?

Mr. Bracken: I am very glad for the tribute to the B.B.C., but I must look into the hon. Lady's question before giving an answer.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Minister of Information whether there is at the Ministry any department dealing with Soviet Russia, similar to his American Department, and able to supply speakers and information for Anglo-Soviet friend ship meetings.

Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wedgwood: Can societies which want speakers apply to the Ministry?

Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that most of the information about Russia is given by anti-Soviet speakers, like Sir Paul Dukes?

Mr. Bracken: As a matter of fact, one of my hon. Friend's warmest admirers is acting as head of this division.

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Information what steps he is taking in regard to Allied propaganda in Italy?

Mr. Bracken: It is not in the public interest to disclose what steps are being taken in this matter.

Dr. Thomas: Would my right hon. Friend, when dealing with Italian propaganda, endeavour to revive and give a lead to the spirit of the Risorgimento and of Matteotti, which still smoulders in the hearts of the majority of the Italian people, despite 20 years of brutal suppression by Fascismo?

Mr. Bracken: The gentlemen in charge of our propaganda are not forgetful of these facts.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Minister of Information whether he will make a statement on the character and extent of British broadcasting to Switzerland; and whether the dominant influence of British sea and air power in the process of the war is kept before the Swiss people?

Mr. Bracken: The normal foreign programmes of the B.B.C. are received by

the Swiss people without difficulty. These broadcasts include full information about British activity on sea and in the air.

Sir P. Hannon: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that everything reasonably possible has been done?

Mr. Bracken: Yes; the activities are growing from day to day, but I am satisfied that everything we can do is being done.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Minister of Information whether the British Legation at Berne is supplied with, and puts into circulation, as early as possible, in formation on the progress of the war; and whether these statements are keeping pace with the activities of German propaganda in Switzerland?

Mr. Bracken: Everything possible is done to keep people in Switzerland in formed about the progress of the war from our side.

Sir P. Hannon: Is there any difficulty in getting magazines and other publications into Switzerland, and in getting news there?

Mr. Bracken: Yes, it is very difficult, owing to our limited air transport; but, to make up for that difficulty, we are issuing a bi-weekly bulletin in Switzerland.

INVASION AND INFORMATION COMMITTEES.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced in many regions in completing the personnel of invasion committees and oilier war emergency organisations; and whether, seeing that these new committees undertake work originally allotted to local information committees of the Ministry of Information, he will disband, or greatly reduce, those latter committees, and release eligible men and women members for urgent local war service?

Mr. Bracken: My hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that the functions of invasion committees and information committees are in any way identical. The Ministry of Information has no responsibility for invasion committees.

Sir P. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, according to information


given to Members of Parliament by the regional officials, there is considerable overlapping between the two sets of committees, and that the members of these local information committees could do better service on urgent war work?

Mr. Bracken: I must remind my hon. Friend that there is no conscription for these committees. They are local volunteer units. If they do not meet, or if they are moribund, we do our best to wind them up, but in many cases they are functioning very well. We do not want to abolish committees which are working well and doing good public service.

Sir P. Hurd: That is not the information of Members of Parliament.

Major Lyons: By whom are the members of these committees appointed?

UNITED STATES (INFORMATION)

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the Minister of Information whether he is satisfied with the quantity and type of in formation supplied by his Department in the United States of America?

Mr. Bracken: Since I cannot be sure that my own views are free from prejudice, perhaps I can best answer my hon. Friend by quoting the opinion of an impartial commentator. In a recent newspaper article, Mr. Raymond Gram Swing wrote:
As to British propaganda in the United States, it has so far been kept to a right and low level, and if the level is raised it will en lighten few in this country. It will only ease the frustration of certain impatient individuals in Great Britain.

Mr. Kerr: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from members of the T.U.C. recently returned from America?

Mr. Bracken: No, I have not received any. I saw that one of them was good enough to give his views to the Press and to say that he was going to send a communication to me, but it has not arrived yet.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that the views of Mr. Raymond Gram Swing are not prejudiced? Does he base his decision on the views of Mr. Raymond Gram Swing or on his own judgment?

Mr. Bracken: In answer to that agree able question, I would point out that Mr. Raymond Gram Swing is one of the greatest publicity experts in the world; he lives in America; and, surely, he is a better judge of how our information ser vice works in America than I am. I am certainly not infallible.

NATIONAL REICH CHURCH

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that in the plan for the establishment of a National Reich Church in Germany and German-occupied Europe, the Bible is definitely excluded from use, and reference and is to be replaced by "Mein Kampf" and whether this projected destruction of Christianity is being emphasised by British broadcast in all Christian countres?

Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir. The B.B.C. is doing everything in its power to expose this Nazi conspiracy against religion.

CHRISTMAS MAILS.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Post master-General whether, in order to minimise delay during the Christmas period of business and official communications, he will give priority to the passage of mails between one industrial, commercial, or administrative centre and another?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Mails between such centres are normally sent by the quickest route and are exchanged direct in the sense that they do not pass through an intermediate Post Office. During the Christmas period, all places with a reasonable number of letters for a given place despatch direct mails to that place, thus ensuring the earliest possible delivery. I trust that the extension of the direct system of mails during the Christmas period and the other arrangements which have been made will give a satisfactory service between the centres to which the hon. Member has referred.

HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings what progress is being made with the repairs to the Commons Chamber in the Palace of West-


minster; what architect is being consulted; and whether a Committee of this House, as representing prospective users and workers, will be set up to give practical advice?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): Preliminary information is being collected by the Ministry with a view to the preparation of plans and the starting of the work when hostilities are over. The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the fullest consultation with all interested parties, including the Royal Fine Art Commission and an advisory committee of the House, will take place before new plans are adopted.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will the hon. Member bear in mind the questions of modern acoustics, ventilation and sound recording; and may we hope that these English words, which are so pregnant with regard to the past, the present and the future, will be placed over the Chair: "Lest we Forget"?

Mr. Hicks: Thank you for the suggestion.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the hon. Member consult Members of the House with knowledge, experience and great personal interest in this matter, before any final plans are made?

Mr. Hicks: I said that before any new plans are adopted an advisory committee of this House will be consulted.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will that committee include Members who are interested in ventilation? Ventilation is a very important question, especially in regard to the Gallery, where it is very bad.

Mr. Hicks: Every consideration will be given to the ventilation of grievances.

BARBADOS (WORKERS' CONDITIONS).

Dr. Morgan: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether any local legislation has been passed in the island of Barbados affecting working conditions in bakeries since January, 1939, when working conditions were bad, with latrines situated inside the actual bakeries, and the bakers working from 5 p.m. until 6 a.m., or from 8 p.m. to 9 a.m. next day, during which

hours they were padlocked, without meals, in their bakeries; whether any workshop inspectors existed in the island at this date; and whether such conditions still exist?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): I am not aware that any local legislation has been passed with particular reference to this industry, but a Bakers' Conciliation Board, consisting of equal numbers of employers and workers, or persons representing their interests, under the chairmanship of the Labour Officer, was formed during 1940. The Board met on five occasions during that year, and reached agreement on all points. The agreement involved considerable reduction in working hours, substantial in creases in pay, the provision of a week's holiday annually with pay, and many other stipulations regarding working conditions.

Dr. Morgan: Is not legislation in regard to working conditions desirable in Barbados?

Mr. Hall: It would be very much better if this matter could be arranged between representatives of both sides.

Dr. Morgan: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether any factory legislation has been passed within the last two years in the island of Barbados; and is he aware that up to January, 1939, there was no factory legislation and no factory inspection, even with respect to defective and dangerous machinery, when 23,000 workers in the island were involved?

Mr. Hall: A Bill providing for the fencing of machinery in factories and work shops and for the inspection of dangerous machinery was introduced into the Barbados Legislature last July, and it is hoped that this may become law at an early date.

Dr. Morgan: Having regard to the long delay between the introduction of the legislation and its passage, will anything be done to expedite it?

Mr. Hall: We are in communication with the Government now, and we hope that this will soon become law.

Dr. Morgan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, whilst a Minimum Wage


Act was passed in Barbados in 1938, six years after a circular requesting such legislation was received from the Colonial Office, up to 1939 there was no Wages Board in the island, and no scale of mini mum wages in operation; and whether any changes in this respect have occurred since, or any Government inquiry made?

Mr. Hall: The question of fixing minimum wages for certain occupations under the Minimum Wage Act was considered last year by the Government of Barbados, but it was felt that in most cases the parties concerned ought to be able to reach agreement by collective bar gaining. In order to facilitate agreement on this and other questions, conciliation boards, under the chairmanship of the Labour Officer, containing persons representing employers and workers in equal numbers, were set up for various industries. A Central Advisory Labour Board was also established. The reports received indicate that the results of this procedure have been very satisfactory.

Dr. Morgan: Can my hon. Friend say whether any minimum wage scale has been agreed upon?

Mr. Hall: No, Sir, I cannot.

GOLD COAST (SPIRIT IMPORTS).

Mr. Barr: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any indication of the operation of the Ordinance of 1939 for the restriction of the importation of geneva and gin into the Gold Coast; how the quotas authorised for 1940 and 1941 compare so far with the actual imports; and whether there is any prospect of a return to the method of the earlier Ordinance, under which the quantity authorised to be imported was to be reduced year by year by 10 per cent. per annum until the import of geneva or gin was to have been completely eliminated by 1940?

Mr. George Hall: The quota for 1940 was fixed on the basis of the permitted imports of gin for 1937, the last normal year; that for 1941 was based on the average consumption for the period 1931–1939. The 1940 quota was for 150,000 gallons, the actual imports being 7,934 gallons. The 1941 quota was 73,500 gallons. The actual imports during

the current year are not expected to exceed 8,500 gallons. As regards the last part of the Question, the operation of the 1939 Ordinance will be carefully reviewed from time to time in consultation with the Governor, but I am not aware of any grounds for reconsidering at the present time a measure which was enacted with the approval of the African members of the Legislative Council and which appears to be fully in accord with popular sentiment in the Gold Coast.

Mr. Barr: In view of the statement that has been made and the far-reaching change of policy, I shall seek an opportunity of raising this matter at an early stage on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA.

PALM KERNELS.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why the ban on the export of palm kernels from Nigeria has been reimposed as from the 24th October last; and what measures have been taken, or are in contemplation, for the relief of the growers in the districts where export has been prohibited?

Mr. George Hall: The prohibition of the purchase for export of palm kernels in certain areas of Nigeria has not been re-imposed since it was suspended in May last. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Harvey: Would my hon. Friend consider, in view of the difficulties of the growers, the formation of a board like the Cocoa Board to control palm kernels and the stabilisation of prices in the interests of the growers?

Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir, that matter is being considered at the present time.

CIVIL SERVICE AND RAILWAY WORKERS (PAY).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of considerable discontent among members of the Nigerian Civil Service and the railway workers respecting revision and increase of salaries and pay; whether, in view of the increased cost of living, he will inquire into the demand for a war bonus and a beneficial revision of salaries; and whether he is


satisfied that Sessional Papers Nos. 1 and 2, 1941, will not adversely affect civil servants and make promotion to executive posts more difficult?

Mr. George Hall: As the reply is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's per mission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the reply of my hon. Friend indicate that some action has been taken regarding the very strong discontent shown by the workers?

Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be dissatisfied when he receives the reply.

Following is the reply:

It is understood that representations on behalf of the African staff of the Nigerian Civil Service including the railway staff have been made to the Government of Nigeria from time to time. Many improvements in the conditions of service of railway workers were introduced with effect from the 1st of October and my Noble Friend has been in communication with the Governor of Nigeria in regard to possible improvements in the salary scale in the general clerical and technical services.

Quite apart from the question of these improvements, the Governor has ap pointed a special committee to consider the adequacy or otherwise of rates of pay of labour, and of African Government servants and employees in the township of Lagos, having regard to any increase in cost of living which may have occurred since the outbreak of war, and to make recommendations as follow:

(a) Whether a temporary increase by way of bonus or other addition to pay should be made.
(b,) Whether any form of relief is desirable, such as, for example, (i) free meals at work; (ii) provision of good and cheap meals on purchase; (iii) stricter price control; (iv) rent restriction; (v) provision of quarters or assisted scheme for tenements.

Provincial wages committees also have been requested to submit recommendations as to whether existing minimum rates of pay should be raised.

As regards the third part of my hon. Friend's Question, Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1941 is a statement incorporating the decisions and modifications of the terms

and service of the clerical, technical and subordinate staff of the local Civil Ser vice which have been made since the issue of Sessional Paper No. 19 of 1935. Sessional Paper No. 2 of 1941 is a statement of the standard salary scales and terms of appointment for an intermediate division of the Civil Service for officials locally recruited. The creation of an intermediate division of the Civil Service is one of the principal measures whereby it is hoped to foster the training of Africans to take an increasing share and responsibility in the Government Service with the ultimate object of relieving more highly paid European personnel of the accumulating volume of routine duties with which they are normally burdened. My Noble Friend sees no reason to sup pose that the statements in these two Sessional Papers are not in the best interests of the Nigerian Civil Service.

SALT (LAGOS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to difficulties arising from the shortage of salt in Lagos and the complaint that the number of rationing centres is too small; whether, in particular, he is aware of the stampede for salt at Enugu where a young child lost his life; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to meeting the need more satisfactorily?

Mr. George Hall: I am aware that there has been some shortage of salt in Nigeria, but every effort is being made to expedite supplies, and I see no cause for alarm. My Noble Friend has received no reports that the numbers of rationing centres are too small or of any incident at Enugu.

Mr. Sorensen: Has my hon. Friend seen reports in Colonial papers regarding the alleged very small number of rationing centres in this area, and will he pay particular attention to the matter to see whether this can be remedied?

Mr. Hall: No, Sir, my attention has not been drawn to this matter, and the Governor has not made any mention of it.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE.

Mr. Riley: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether consultations have taken place regarding the desirability of setting up a standing


joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, for the purpose of keeping under regular review questions pertaining to the development and well-being of our colonial subjects; and whether anything is being done in the matter?

Mr. George Hall: No consultations have taken place in this matter since the autumn of 1939, when the House was informed that the proposal raised issues of Parliamentary procedure and constitutional practice of a far-reaching character, which would require very careful consideration. My hon. Friend will appreciate, I feel sure, that war conditions do not provide a favourable opportunity for the consideration of such a matter.

Mr. Riley: Will the Minister bear in mind that this request has been made in every Colonial discussion in the last few years and that the Prime Minister undertook to have the matter gone into?

Mr. Hall: The matter was considered, but the war intervened, and Ministers have been so preoccupied with other very important matters that it has been impossible to give consideration to this matter.

Colonel Arthur Evans: In view of the fact that the Government have not found it possible to issue the annual Colonial Report for reasons of security, will my hon. Friend be good enough to ask his right hon. Friend to consider the matter again?

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that war conditions greatly restrict the time available for Debate on Colonial matters in this House and of the widespread feeling expressed by Members of the House the other day, will my hon. Friend ask his Noble Friend to reconsider this matter sympathetically?

Mr. Hall: This matter is constantly before my right hon Friend, and I have no doubt that he will consider it in the light of these questions.

Mr. Lipson: Cannot a joint committee of this kind help the Minister even in wartime?

Mr. Sorensen: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that many Members of this House who would like to discuss very pertinent matters to the Colonies cannot have an opportunity in these days, and

will he devise some means whereby consultations can take place from time to time?

Mr. Hall: Hon. Members can approach the Colonial Office. We are always ready and very happy to see any hon. Members who are interested in Colonial questions.

DEFENCE UNITS (UNIFORMS).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the variety of uniforms of the different civil and military defence units and the time and labour expended by those engaged in designing them, he will consider the advisability of standardising design as far as possible, thus economising in labour effort?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): Different Services should have different uniforms. Subject to that, every effort is made to ensure the utmost economy in labour. Home Guard and Civil Defence uniforms are in general of a similar design to those of the Services.

Captain McEwen: In the further interests of equality, would not it be possible to standardise the work of these units too?

MALAYA (TIN ORE EXPORTS)

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the tax on tin ore exported from British Malaya is the reason why tin miners in that Colony are denied the right of exporting their ore to the United States' Government smelter, and thereby are prevented from competing with other tin-mining countries; and whether he will consider advising the Malayan Government to have the tax repealed?

Mr. George Hall: The primary consideration in war-time is the most economical use of shipping space and packing materials. Smelted tin is practically pure, stows most economically and requires no packing. Malayan tin ore contains about 40 per cent. of impurities, takes up proportionately even greater space than this figure suggests and has to be packed in bags. In these circumstances my Noble Friend considers that it would be contrary to the public interest to permit the export of tin ore from Malaya at the present time.

Sir G. Broadbridge: Is it not the fact that of all commodities, tin produces the largest volume of dollars for the British Exchange, and if this is so, is it not advisable to abolish all duties which prevent the free export of tin or tin ore to America?

Mr. Hall: We are obtaining substantial dollar exchange as a result of consulting the United States Government, and there has been no representation at all by that Government to my Noble Friend for a reconsideration of this duty, and action has not been taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR TRANSPORT.

MOTOR DRIVERS (FIRE-WATCHING DUTIES).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that motor-drivers, after working from, say, 7 a.m. to 4.30 or 5.30 p.m., are called upon for fire-watching duties from 6 p.m. to 1.30 a.m., and, upon resuming motor-driving duty next morning have complained of drowsiness; and whether he will examine such cases in the interest of public safety?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): I have not received any representations on the subject, nor have I heard of any accidents due to this cause. It would be impracticable to exempt motor-drivers generally from fire-watching duties.

Mr. Adams: Although the Minister has not received complaints hitherto, will he accept my assurance that these are fairly numerous in the North of England?

Colonel Llewellin: I will look into any case that my hon. Friend sends me, but, of course, the great point about the fire-watching Order was to keep it as general as possible and to have as few exemptions as possible.

RAILWAY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether the members of the Railway Executive Committee while holding office are entirely separated from their normal railway responsibilities and receive no payment from that source while they accept directions only from his Ministry?

Colonel Llewellin: The chairman of the Railway Executive Committee, who is also the Controller of Railways in the Ministry of War Transport, has no other railway responsibilities and is unpaid. The other members continue to be responsible under the direction of the Minister through the Railway Executive Committee for the management of their respective undertakings. Their salaries are borne as expenses chargeable to the Railway Control Pool Account.

Mr. Mathers: An answer given last week or the week before regarding salaries was that no salaries were paid to these gentlemen. Do I now understand that for acting as they do salaries arc now paid from Government funds?

Colonel Llewellin: These gentlemen, except the chairman, are paid salaries which are part of the running cost of the railway companies and come out of the general pool account. If revenue falls short of expenses, the Government make up the difference, and if the revenue is higher than expenses, the Government take the whole profit.

Mr. Mathers: In the light of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about the payment of these gentlemen, would it not be as well to extend this committee to include other representatives, in order that the public interest may be served, instead of there being a purely railway interest?

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir, I think not. The general policy on which the railways are run is a matter for my Noble Friend and, to a lesser degree, myself. The Railway Executive Committee is concerned with actual operation for which people well used to running railways are far better fitted than anybody else.

RAILWAY PASSENGER TRAFFIC, CHRISTMAS PERIOD.

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in view of the additional rail passenger traffic of last August, any different appeal for limitation is to be made in connection with the forthcoming Christmas and New Year period; what steps are proposed to enforce it; and whether any special or additional trains will be put into operation by the railway companies during this time?

Colonel Llewellin: We do not intend merely to appeal to people to refrain from travelling long distances by rail this Christmas; we warn them of the limited services which will be available and that in no circumstances will those services be increased. We cannot provide additional locomotives for passenger trains, and therefore on no day of Christmas week will more long-distance passenger trains be run than on an ordinary week-day. The trains will thus be far fewer than is usual at Christmas, and if more people seek to travel than can be accommodated, they will find themselves left behind on the station. Normal long-distance services will run in Scotland at the New Year period.

Major Lyons: As the request for the cessation of travel last August was entirely stultified by extra trains being put on at the last moment, can the Parliamentary Secretary give us an assurance that there will not be a repetition of this farce this Christmas?

Colonel Llewellin: I think I made it quite clear in my answer that in no circumstances will these services be increased. That is the decision which has been reached, and that decision will be adhered to.

Mr. Mander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will make arrangements for equivalent travelling facilities to be available during the Christmas holidays for members of the Services as for civilians; and whether he will give an assurance that in no circumstances will extra trains be put on?

Colonel Llewellin: I think that there has been some misunderstanding as to the arrangement made in regard to Service leave at Christmas. Members of the Services are allowed four weeks' privilege leave with free travel. The normal amount of privilege leave will be given during the Christmas period, but it has been so arranged as to avoid travel by long-distance trains during 24th to 28th December inclusive. Certain classes of leave travel, such as embarkation leave and leave granted on compassionate grounds, will not be affected. Short-pass leave, involving travel by rail, will, however, be discontinued between 20th and 29th December inclusive. The movements of the general public obviously cannot be

controlled in this way. I have dealt with the last part of the Question in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Major Lyons).

Mr. Mander: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind the no less firm statements that were made last August, but not adhered to? Will he see that the same thing does not happen again?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir. I said so quite distinctly.

Mr. Mander: Not in the same spirit as last August?

Colonel Llewellin: I did not make that statement in August. I make it now, and we intend to adhere to it. I hope everybody will realise that this is going to be the fact.

I.L.O. CONFERENCE, UNITED STATES.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement about the proceedings of the conference of the International Labour Office which he recently attended in the United States of America?

Mr. Attlee: I would ask my hon. Friend to await a statement on this subject which it is proposed to issue shortly in the form of a White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

RAILINGS (RACECOURSE, SALISBURY).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether he has considered a proposal from the Salisbury District Council for the removal of the railings, weighing 46 tons, from the racecourse owned by the Earl of Pembroke; and what reply he has sent?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The proposal was put to the Ministry of Works and Buildings, who have undertaken, on behalf of the Ministry of Supply, the actual removal of unnecessary railings for scrap. It was considered that the railings should be retained so long as the racecourse remained one of those few remaining courses approved by the Minister of Home Security for war-time race meetings.

Mr. Strauss: As railings have been taken down in the great parks, surely it can be done on a race-course?

Mr. Macmillan: I am not very much of a racing man, but I assume that if you are to have race meetings, it is as well to have railings to protect you from these dangerous animals.

Mr. George Griffiths: Are railings round this race-course more important than railings round churches?

PAPER ECONOMY.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply what steps he is taking to check the use of paper by the National Savings Committee?

Mr. Macmillan: The provisions of the Control of Paper (No. 36) Order apply to posters issued by the National Savings Committee. Arrangements have also been made for a reduction in the size of programmes for War Savings Weeks. This reduction should result in a substantial saving in paper.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the National Savings Committee sends round enevelopes of a sack-like size in order to distribute nothing but a quite small poster, and will he take some steps to prevent this kind of waste in future?

Mr. Macmillan: It is for that reason that I have just told my hon. Friend that we have held a meeting with the National Savings Committee and have come to an agreement over the whole range of their use of paper, for the purpose of reducing the size.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

CATERING ESTABLISHMENTS.

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether it is proposed to make any Order to impose price investigation and control upon goods, foodstuffs and services at hotels, restaurants, railway buffets, restaurant-cars, cafés and other refreshment places?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): No, Sir.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why local food control committees have not been given powers to refuse to grant

certificates of registration, where they know that further catering establishments are merely a luxury and quite unnecessary in a particular area, although they have powers to refuse licences to trade?

Major Lloyd George: The policy of requiring retail traders in food to be licensed has now been applied to catering and other establishments serving meals. The Order which my Noble Friend has made for the purpose empowers food control committees to refuse applications for a licence where they consider further catering facilities unnecessary.

CONSUMERS (REGISTRATION).

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether customers registered with a dairy where pasteurised or high-grade milk is unobtainable can, on making application, re-register immediately with another retailer?

Major Lloyd George: Change of retailer can only be effected where permission is given by a local food control committee. Each application is considered on its merits. I would remind my hon. Friend that during the recent period of registration it was open to consumers, if they so desired, to register with a retailer who could supply certified T.T. or sterilised milk.

MILK DISTRIBUTION.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the letter from the Lochgelly Equitable Co-operative Society, sent on to him by the Member for West Fife; and what steps does he propose to take?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. I am replying in detail to the points raised in the letter to which my hon. Friend refers. In the meantime I refer him to my reply to similar Questions by himself and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) on 26th November.

Mr. Gallacher: Can we take it that the Clyde is likely to get a share of the milk?

Major Lloyd George: Certainly, Sir.

CANTEENS, AIR-RAID SHELTERS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will take steps to ensure that canteens in air-raid shelters shall he


adequately supplied with suitable foods; and whether he will recommend to local authorities that these be made available, at least to children, at cost price?

Major Lloyd George: Canteens in air-raid shelters can receive supplies of suitable foods. The canteens are managed by voluntary organisations or by representatives of the shelterers, and in some cases by the local authority concerned or by caterers appointed by the local authority. Prices are approved by the local authority and are kept as low as is possible commensurate with the service provided.

Mr. Adams: In view of the fact that the matter is voluntary, ought it not to be compulsory to have these supplies in the shelters?'

Major Lloyd George: The local authority, I think, takes the first step in these matters.

MULTIPLE BUSINESSES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food upon what grounds multiple retail-food businesses are permitted to take both wholesale and retail profits on butter and cheese; whether he is aware that this concession is unfair to smaller traders and is frequently exploited at the periods of consumer re-registration; and whether he will withdraw that privilege in favour of such a system of prices graduated according to services as operates in the case of bacon and other rationed foods?

Major Lloyd George: Under the distribution arrangements for most rationed foods, including butter and cheese, traders who in peace-time bought at first-hand prices may continue to do so. I have no evidence that these arrangements act to the detriment of small traders.

HOARDING PROSECUTION, HARROGATE.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the charge made at the Harrogate Police Court, on Tuesday, against William Hargraves Moore, who resides at Clevedon, Fulworth, Mill Lane, Harrogate, for hoarding 1,115 tins of various kinds of food, 127 boxes of biscuits and a great quantity of cheese, fats, sugar and cereals; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

Major Lloyd George: The case referred to by my hon. Friend was heard at Harrogate Police Court on 25th November, and the defendant was fined £30 and ordered to pay five guineas costs on a summons under the Acquisition of Food (Excessive Quantities) Order.

Mr. Thorne: In cases like this is food taken away?

Major Lloyd George: There is a provision by which food can be taken away if it is to be requisitioned, but I am not satisfied with the position, and I hope very much there will be an alteration.

TURKEYS (PRICE).

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the unfairness of the pricing of turkeys for the Christmas trade in the smaller towns such as Devizes, the seven per cent. gross allowed for profit meeting no more than overhead expenses, while in larger towns, on each side of Devizes, traders are allowed to charge an extra 2d. per pound; and whether he will take remedial action?

Major Lloyd George: The additional charge of 2d. per lb. permissible in the larger industrial areas scheduled in the Poultry (Maximum Prices) (No. 2) Order, 1941, was intended to steer supplies to those areas which had previously been short. In the absence of control over supplies and distribution, a rough-and-ready expedient of this kind is the only practicable method of influencing distribution. The method was necessarily experimental, and as a result of experience an amending Order has been made which came into force on 1st December which provides an additional charge of 1d. per lb. over the basic price in about 150 other areas which have suffered unduly from the operation of the 2d. charge.

Sir P. Hurd: May we take it that in Devizes we shall get more turkeys for Christmas?

Major Lloyd George: That, I could not say.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why there is no control either of distribution or purchase from Northern Ireland?

Major Lloyd George: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that reason as well as I do.

LEMONADE SUBSTITUTE.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether investigations have now been completed respecting the lemonade substitute, first brought to his attention on 15th July; whether he will state the actual value of the one-third ounce of powder for which the public was charged 9d.; and whether he is permitting this article to be sold again at this price?

Major Lloyd George: The manufacturer of the lemon substitute referred to by my hon. Friend has been granted a licence under the Food Substitutes (Control) Order. The conditions attaching to the licence include a maximum selling price of 4½d. per ⅓rd oz. packet: alternatively, 9d. per 1 oz. packet. The above prices were arrived at after making due allowance for materials, packaging and selling costs.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that one-third of an ounce of this powder did not cost more than ½d. and that there was, therefore, a great gross profit made during the past year? Has he taken any action to prevent the exploitation of the public?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman knows that until the Order was passed it was not possible to take any action. Action has now been taken on that Order, and only the prices which I have stated can be charged in the future.

Mr. Sorensen: Was it not rather a long time, from 15th July until now, before action was taken?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman knows that a good many other commodities had to be considered and that this particular commodity caused some difficulty.

ONIONS.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give an estimate of the quantity of onions which have been destroyed by producers on account of their having been unable to obtain sufficiently prompt instructions from the National Vegetable Marketing Company, or from local food offices, as to disposal for sale?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. If my hon. Friend, however, will give me par-

ticulars of any cases of wastage of onions due to the causes he mentions, I will arrange with the National Vegetable Marketing Company to have them investigated immediately.

Sir J. Mellor: Will compensation be given to growers for losses incurred in these circumstances?

Major Lloyd George: It all depends how the losses were incurred. I have no information that any losses have been due to neglect on the part of the National Vegetable Marketing Company.

PRICE COMPLAINT, GLASGOW.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Lord Advocate why his Department instructed no proceedings in the food control complaint against R. and J. Templeton for having on 8th October, 1941, in one of their Glasgow branches, and by the hands of an employee, sold a tin of diced carrots at a price of 11½d., the controlled price of which was 7½d., when proceedings were taken in almost similar circumstances against John MacLaughlan, another retailer who, on 18th November, was fined £2 for selling a tin of diced carrots for 8½d., an overcharge of 1d.?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): No proceedings were taken against Messrs. R. & J. Templeton, Limited, because there were in this case extenuating circumstances which in my judgment made it proper not to prosecute.

Mr. McKinlay: Is it not a fact that similar circumstances applied in the case of MacLaughlan and 22 other traders who were fined for selling at a halfpenny over the fixed price, and that all of them had the same reasons for doing so, and is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling that the small trader is being discriminated against, because Templeton's sold at 4½d. over the price and there was no prosecution?

The Lord Advocate: The circumstances in Templeton's case were not present in any other cases.

Mr. McKinlay: Is the Lord Advocate aware that in Glasgow there is the opinion that the circumstances were the same in both the cases referred to in my Question?

The Lord Advocate: I have seen the papers, and there are different circumstances.

Mr. Garro Jones: What were those circumstances?

The Lord Advocate: It has never been the practice for the Lord Advocate to give particulars of the reasons which have led him either to prosecute or not to prosecute. That has never been the practice, and the reason is that in very many cases it would be plainly contrary to the public interest to disclose the reasons in such cases.

CHARGE NOT PROVEN, GLASGOW.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Lord Advocate why he did not proceed with the appeal against the Sheriff's decision in the case against Mrs. Mary Russell Macindoe, 6, Victoria Circus, Glasgow, W.2, who was prosecuted for obtaining excessive quantities of meat from her meat retailer and acquitted on the technical grounds that the enforcement inspectors who called on her had not cautioned her?

The Lord Advocate: The Sheriff Substitute sustained an objection to the admissi-bility in evidence of answers alleged to have been given by Mrs. Macindoe to questions put to her by officers of the Ministry of Food on the ground that she had not been cautioned, and he held that on the admissible evidence the charge was not proven. In my judgment there was no such prospect of success in an appeal against this judgment as would warrant proceeding with the appeal.

Mr. McKinlay: Is the Lord Advocate aware that the prosecution of Mrs. Macindoe did not arise from the visit of the enforcement officers, but from evidence disclosed at the trial of the Scottish farmers who were fined £200 for supplying meat in excess, and that it was from that evidence that the prosecution of the consumers took place; and is he aware that this is the second or third case where the Lord Advocate's Department have protected the Sheriff against his own folly?

The Lord Advocate: The evidence to which the hon. Member referred in the first part of his Supplementary Question was put before the Sheriff. The Sheriff held that the evidence was insufficient without the statement of Mrs. Macindoe. Mrs. Macindoe's statement was ruled out as inadmissible, and the Sheriff therefore held the case not proven., There is no appeal on the facts.

Mr. McKinlay: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

BRITISH ARMY (SOLDIERS' TEMPORARY RELEASE).

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will define, in general terms, the grounds on which applications based on compassionate grounds, by serving soldiers for exemption from service, temporary or permanent, are regarded by his Department as meriting consideration?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys): Temporary release is authorised on compassionate grounds in authenicated cases of distress of the parents or family of a soldier, caused by illness or business difficulty, provided that the presence of the soldier at his home is essential and will enable him to arrange matters so that he can return to his unit at the end of his release with the problem solved.

FIDUCIARY NOTE ISSUE (INCREASE).

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: (by Private Notice)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make about the amount of the fiduciary note issue?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Yes, Sir. Owing to the continued demand for currency, an increase in the fiduciary note issue is necessary, and, acting under the power conferred by Section 8 of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, as subsequently amended, the Treasury have authorised an increase in the amount of the fiduciary note issue by £50,000,000 to £780,000,000 as from yesterday. The Treasury minute will be laid before Parliament forthwith.

Col. Arthur Evans: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is no substantial hoarding of Treasury or Bank of England notes throughout the country?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I would not say that. I should like to take the opportunity of asking people to reduce the number of notes which they hold. It would be far better and wiser either to invest them in National Savings Certificates or to put them into a bank or the Post Office.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend understand that at the present time, before the new increase, the fiduciary note issue is equivalent to £16 per head of the whole population, men, women and children, and does not that indicate that there must be some hoarding and that when the war is over and this money is released, there will be the possibility of inflation?

Sir K. Wood: I think hoarding is one of the reasons, but there is a variety of reasons. One, of course, is the much more frequent use of cash instead of cheques, and another is the increased use of cash caused by the separation of households.

Mr. Thorne: Is there not the danger that if people have too much cash about them, they will have it pinched?

Dr. Russell Thomas: Why is cash being used instead of cheques?

Sir K. Wood: There are a great many people who, because of the circumstances of the time, are using cash for the payment of their bills where previously they used cheques.

Mr. Lipson: Is not that true in the black market?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will not my right hon. Friend encourage the use of cheques?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the large number of Members who wish to take part in the Debate on Maximum National Effort, he will make any arrangements for an additional day to be given for this Debate?

The Lord Privy Seal: We are quite ready to meet the wishes of the House and, as so many Members wish to speak, I think it would be generally convenient if we made arrangements for the Debate on the Government proposals to be continued on the Third Sitting Day. We propose, therefore, to ask the House to pass the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill through its remaining stages on the Third Sitting Day and then resume the Debate on the Government Motion, which will be concluded at the end of that day. This will mean the postponement of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
It may be convenient to the House if I make a statement in regard to the arrangements for the new Bill, which will follow the passing of the Motion. At the end of the Debate on the Third Sitting Day we shall ask leave to bring in the necessary Bill. Copies will be available to Members that same day together with an explanatory White Paper. We propose to take the Second Reading on the First Sitting Day after this week, and in view of its urgency it will be necessary for us to ask the House to take the Committee and remaining stages on the following days so that the Bill may be sent to another place the same week.
A further statement on Business will be made at the usual time. In arranging the programme we shall endeavour to meet the wishes of the House, but I think I ought to warn hon. Members that it may be necessary for us to sit on an additional day following each of the next two series of Sitting Days.

Mr. Lees-Smith: In regard to the Committee stage of the Bill, does the Lord Privy Seal recognise that we cannot at this moment say how many days will be needed for such a very complex Measure, and will he bear in mind that it may be necessary to adjust the Business accordingly?

Mr. Attlee: Certainly, we are prepared to give the fullest possible time, and there is always the possibility of an extension. If, when Members see the Bill, they need a greater length of time, we may have to meet a day earlier, which I understand does not meet the convenience of Members. However, I think that there will be adequate time in which to consider the Bill.

Mr. A. Bevan: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are in a position to indicate your attitude towards the Amendments to the Prime Minister's Motion which appear on the Order Paper? May I ask you to bear in mind, in coming to your decision, that these Amendments have been prepared under great Parliamentary difficulties? We did not know what the Motion was to be until the weekend, when Members had dispersed. We were faced with the Prime Minister's Motion yesterday, and we had to leave the Debate in order to consider whether an Amendment should be put down. May I submit to you, Sir, that the Govern-


ment ought to consider the convenience of the House a little more than this?

Mr. Speaker: The House will realise that this procedure of having a Government Motion prior to the introduction of a Bill is somewhat new. It is new in a sense, but in a sense it is old. The old practice of reading a Bill the First time has been done away with long ago, and we are reverting to it now in the form of a Motion. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I am not prepared to say. In regard to the Amendments, I would point out that I am always anxious to meet the convenience of the House but these particular Amendments make discussion as inconvenient as they possibly can. Supposing I took either of the Amendments, it would cut the Debate off from the Motion and confine discussion to something quite new and different. I should have to be very strict in my Ruling and see that the real subject-matter of the Motion was not discussed, and that the Debate was confined to the subjects raised in the Amendments. If, in order to suit the convenience of the House, another form of Amendment was put down, I should be prepared to consider it, so that the Amendment and the Motion might be discussed together. The House must understand that these Amendments suggest the addition of words at the end of the Motion, which would confine the discussion entirely to the Amendments and not to the Motion. If the Amendments left out certain words, so that I could put the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," it would make discussion possible on both the Amendments and the Motion. That is the only way in which I can consider Amendments to this Motion.

Mr. Bevan: The House is, I am sure, very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling. Do I understand that if an Amendment is put on the Order Paper which rejects the Motion of the Prime Minister, or refuses assent to it, because of certain things not being done, it will therefore be in Order?

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment should take the form of what is known in this House as a "reasoned Amendment." Reasoned Amendments, which are often put down in the case of a Second Reading, seek to leave out all the words after "That," in order to say something else.

The Question is then put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," which allows the House to discuss the substance of the Question and the Amendment.

Mr. Stephen: Would that allow the two questions to be put? It appears that there are two questions here. Firstly, there is the general question of the approval of the Government's Motion, and, secondly, there is the question, in which Members are also interested, that the Motion should not be approved unless contingent steps are taken. I hope that the House will have an opportunity to vote on each of these questions. For example, I and my colleagues are not in favour of the Motion even if the Government agreed to this contingent legislation. We are against conscription altogether.

Mr. Speaker: I would advise the hon. Members to put their heads together with the other hon. Members and devise an Amendment which I should be able to consider.

Orders of the Day — MAXIMUM NATIONAL EFFORT.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd December]:
That, in the opinion of this House, for the purpose of securing the maximum national effort in the conduct of the war and in production, the obligation for National Service should be extended to include the resources of woman-power and man-power still available; and that the necessary legislation should be brought in forthwith."—[The Prime Minister.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Brooke: At the time when the Debate was adjourned I was about to point out to the House that, although in July, 1940, we approved an Order setting up a constitutional procedure to deal with threatened strikes and thereby made strikes illegal, it is a fact that at the present time the loss of working days owing to stoppages is running at almost as high a rate as in the year before the war. That has, I think, a moral for this Motion before us. It shows us that if we approve the Motion, as I know we shall, and if we pass the necessary legislation, this is not the end. We also have to make sure that the administrative machinery of the Ministry of Labour is strong enough and smooth-working enough to bear the great additional load which will be cast upon it. Take, for instance, training. The need for training both in industry and in Government centres outside industry must grow. I read not so long ago that, comparaing Government training centres in each case, the number of instructors in Germany was as great as the number of trainees in this country. I hope sincerely that that is not true. When I put a Question to the Minister of Labour the other day about the number of places and the number

of vacancies in Government training centres, he told me it was not in the public interest to give these figures. I submit that it is essential that the House should know these figures. There ought to be no vacancies at all. Has the Ministry of Labour really taken the strain in this matter of training?
I have in my hand the interim report of the Beveridge Committee on Skilled Men in the Services. It is an extremely important Committee. That interim report is dated 30th July. Has the Committee yet submitted its final report? If not, time is being seriously wasted. If it has submitted its report and if that report is now in the hands of the Government, surely it is treating the House less than fully fairly to call upon us to debate a Motion of this character when the highly important evidence—for I have no doubt it will be highly important—contained in the Beveridge Committee's findings is not yet available to us.
I was very glad indeed to hear what the Prime Minister had to say yesterday on the subject of boys and girls. The boys between 16 and 18 are, industrially as well as militarily, the most pliable part of our population. I was pleased to learn that it is proposed to act in this matter through the existing Youth services and under the auspices of the Board of Education. But may I express the hope that the matter will not stop there and that we shall not think only of part-time or leisure-time occupation for these boys in training of national importance, but that we shall go further and see that they are assisted to get out of useless occupations into full-time work of real national value? I am not at all sure that we shall not have to consider an extension of the control of advertising of vacancies for boys and girls and other categories not already covered by the Restriction of Engagement Order, because the smaller the free area of labour becomes, the smaller the uncontrolled field, the greater will be the temptation to attract that labour by artificially high wages and other inducements, not necessarily into those occupations which carry with them the greatest national advantage. I felt great sympathy yesterday with the hon. lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) when she asked why registration was not being extended to the 14–15 age group. If it is not, we shall only push the evil back on to that group


and we shall miss an immense chance of countering blind-alley work and the deterioration that it causes to the quality of the nation.
But, together with all this, more numbers are wanted in the Services and in industry. First of all I hope the Government will take note of the suggestion made yesterday by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) that the Civil Defence Services should be combed out for skilled men—but not in such a way that their efficiency will be weakened when the need for them again arises. We cannot afford at this moment to allow so much skill to be wasted. I was given a case the other day of an A.F.S. sub-station at which more than half of the 70 men engaged had industrial skill of national value. In one crew of six there was a skilled fitter, a carpenter and joiner, a Post-Office telegraphist and a builders' general foreman with supervisory experience. Some scheme needs to be devised so that the industrial services of these men can be enlisted in the national effort.
Now I turn to the women's side. Take the case of women in industry first. I have discussed this matter with the chairman of a well-known firm in productive industry, having branches in different parts of the country. He told me of half a dozen practical difficulties his firm experienced in the way of extending the employment of women. In certain places, in the Midlands particularly, there is a crying shortage of women for employment. In other places you get just the opposite, where there is still a reservoir of unskilled male labour available, and then you have the curious phenomenon that at some Employment Exchanges there is still a reluctance to send women forward for work when there are any unemployed men on the register. I am certain that is not Ministry of Labour policy at headquarters, but it illustrates how policy becomes watered down and amended between the centre and the periphery. Further, in certain places there have been objections on the part of local trade union branches to the employment of women by firms, so long as any of their members remain unemployed in the locality. Again, that is probably not authorised by trade union headquarters, but is the view taken by the men on the spot, and it is the views of the men on the spot in

industry which count. Moreover, no responsible firm is prepared on its own initiative to dismiss large numbers of men in order to replace them with women unless there is an assurance that the men will quickly get other work. No firm can stand the kind of local reputation which that attitude would create.
On all these grounds, there seems to be urgent need for more sure and firm direction by the Ministry of Labour to the exchanges and to the firms which it is begging to assist it and to co-operate with it in its policy of bringing women into industry. On no point is there greater need for that direction than on the matter of women's wages. Every firm, as things are, has to make its own arrangements and carry on its own discussions as to suitable women's wage rates. The firm I spoke of had estimated that if they were to raise all their rates and bonuses for women to the men's standard, it would mean an addition to the wages bill of £250,000 a year—and that would come direct out of the Treasury. It would come out of the firm's excess profit payments. Yet as far as I know there has been no definite guidance either from the Minister of Labour or from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to where a firm's duty lies in such a case.
Now look at it from the women's standpoint. All through this war there has been the complaint— I think the legitimate complaint—that the Ministry has started its publicity before it has perfected its plan and has therefore constantly created among women a sense of frustration. The Minister must not over-estimate the capacity of the individual exchanges to move into work the women who respond to these constant appeals for volunteers. I do not know how many hon. Members heard an extremely interesting broadcast on nth November last of a discussion between a representative of the Ministry of Labour and a woman critic. Many people have agreed with me that it was a very damaging broadcast, and that the only conclusion one could draw from it was that the Ministry had not yet worked out its plans in so masterly a fashion as to have really convincing answers to the legitimate questions which women might ask. One small point struck me. The representative of the Ministry was asked whether the Ministry could tell whether all the women who ought to register had registered.
He said,
These figures are certainly available. We have them in the Ministry of Labour, but I am afraid I am not allowed to give them.
Sixteen days later, exactly the same question was put in the House to the Parliamentary Secretary, whether he could give the figures of the women who ought to have registered and those who did actually register, and the reply was that statistics of the numbers concerned were not available. We all say hard things about statistics, but they do not vanish. That quite small point sharpens in my mind the doubt whether the Ministry of Labour machine is yet really tuned up to the requisite degree of efficiency for the work required. In another of these broadcasts a spokesman of the Ministry said:
No young woman who can leave home to go to a munitions area can be allowed to stay away.
If it really means what it says, it means that young women at present working near their homes on work not of the highest importance must definitely leave their homes and go away to first-grade munitions work. That is not fully understood yet by the public. The Ministry of Labour has not yet been sufficiently definite on it and, if it is going to enforce that very drastic policy, it must prove that it is going to be equally efficient in its handling of all other woman-power available. It must make certain, for instance, that every Government Department employing women in clerical work is surveyed by experts to see that it is being run efficiently and not over-staffed. The Ministry must ensure that the exchanges arc better able than at present to deal rapidly with what I may call the semi-mobile woman, the woman wanting work who cannot go, for various reasons, hundreds of miles from home but can be employed up to 10 or 15 miles away—this is the important point—in a different exchange area. Hon. Ladies yesterday said all that needs to be said about the effect of the shortage of war-time nurseries. I would urge most strongly that the Ministry should now, instead of half-hearted and indefinite appeals, give a really powerful lead to industry to extend part-time work for married women on the greatest possible scale. And is it not right that the Ministry should now register women as rapidly as possible from 30 right up to 50, so as to make sure that that class—a small class, I know—of

women between (say) 35 and 50 who are now doing virtually nothing towards winning the war are brought in and mobilised for work?
We all somewhat dislike the idea of conscription for women into the uniformed Services, but it is proved essential. The more the organisation can be perfected, the less will compulsion be necessary. I do not believe all the slanderous gossip about the state of things in the A.T.S., but, even so, it is a common and, I think, well-founded opinion that few branches connected in any way with the War Office are, on the administrative side, as efficiently run as they might be. A friend of mine, a young woman of 32 or 33 with certain special qualifications, applied to the A.T.S. the other day. She received a reply that vacancies for those with her special qualifications were already filled, but certain other vacancies might be available—would she consider them? Not unnaturally, as the letter came from the A.T.S. headquarters in London, she called there to obtain further particulars about the alternatives offered her. She found that it was impossible on calling there to obtain an interview with anyone who could help her and answer the questions in her mind. Surely the A.T.S. cannot afford, needing women so badly as it does, to neglect that small point of receiving properly those who apply to its headquarters for additional information. The Prime Minister spoke of the 100,000 women needed for Air Defence. I sometimes ask myself, however, whether the A.T.S. demands for women for other work, non-operational work, are fully genuine, and whether it is absolutely necessary to obtain all these women in uniform. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) suggested yesterday that it was time for an independent survey of the A.T.S. from inside to dispose of the slanders that are heard. My own belief is that what is most needed is an inquiry parallel to that which the Beveridge Committee have been conducting in the men's Armed Forces, to ascertain whether the uniformed Services for women are really using their available women aright, and are not in any respect wasting their woman-power in its quality or quantity.
The real conclusion that I am brought to is this. This legislation which is promised us is essential, but legislation is


less important than lubrication—the lubrication of the whole machine so as to make sure that there are going to be no more of the jams at one point or another which have created among so many people a genuine, lamentable feeling of frustration. In that broadcast to which I have referred the representative of the Ministry said:
To-day every man and every woman has to be mobilised for war service, and the parents of the country have just got to face it.
The critic replied, I think rather cogently:
It is not the parents who have to face it. It is your Ministry. You are not mobilising every woman for war service. That is our complaint.
Hon. ladies here and elsewhere have said that a director of woman-power is needed. I am not going to make distinctions between the sexes. What I see needed most of all inside the Ministry of Labour are brilliant organising minds, ready to help the hard-worked staff already there to tune the great machine for organising our man-power and woman-power up to the highest speed. The highest speed is what the perils of our position necessitate.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have the privilege of speaking from this Box because I have obtained the confidence of many of my hon. Friends. I hope to prove worthy of that confidence. I came into the Labour party through the trade union, Co-operative and Labour movement, and this morning I speak from here on behalf of the millions of fellow trade unionists to whom I belong, on behalf of our party, and on behalf of the Cooperative movement which was built up by our class. I want to make our position clear on the issue that we are now considering. The Notice of Motion standing in the names of the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government is headed "Maximum National Effort." Our attitude to this Motion is that further measures for the organisation of manpower are inevitable, but that in order to secure a real maximum effort it is essential that, as a corollary, there should be a greater development in the direction of the control of industry and more efficient organisation of national activities. The conditions of those drafted into the Armed Forces and the auxiliary services should be examined and made as good as possible, and there should be a revision of the Royal Warrant and a substantial in-

crease made in the payments to all dependants.
Our interpretation of maximum national effort is an all-inclusive national service. We have to consider to-day in the main the problem of production, and the Motion, according to our interpretation, means the maximum national production. We cannot obtain that unless we see that everything which impedes national output is dealt with. Had the Prime Minister been present—I am not complaining, because I know there is a Cabinet meeting —I should have made a special appeal to him, for he was one of the keenest advocates of a real Ministry of Supply. The German General Guderian, who is in the forefront of the attack upon our great Soviet Ally, wrote in 1932 words that ought to be impressed indelibly on the mind of every Member of the House and every responsible person outside. He wrote:
Four weeks' drum fire, a four months pitched battle with 400,000 casualties gained for the British in 1916 a strip- of land nine miles by five miles. At Cambrai, with 400 tanks and a loss of less than 400 men, they attained the same result in 12 hours.
I have just read Shirer's "Berlin Diary," and every Member should read it if he can borrow it from the Library. On page 289, he tells how he met some English boys like some of us were 22 years ago. These boys are now prisoners in German hands, and Shirer said:
The English youngsters had fought as bravely as men can, but bravery is not enough in this machine age war. 'We didn't have a chance, said one; we were overwhelmed, especially by their dive bombers and tanks.' 'What about our tanks and bombers?' I asked. The answer was chorused by all the prisoners, 'We didn't see any.'
Since then we have had the publication of Gort's Despatches. A Russian General in his despatch a few weeks ago wrote:
The Germans have more tanks than we have. They are taking the utmost advantage of that fact. They are hurling their tanks against our defences everywhere along the whole front.
Those three quotations assist the House to put the problem of production in its correct perspective. They help to emphasise the importance of accelerated output and of nothing being allowed to stand in the way of the successful prosecution of the war. May I say to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet that we ought not in this stage of the war measure our output by the standards of the last war? The Prime


Minister said yesterday that the crisis of equipment is largely over. Are we sure of that? I ask. The Prime Minister said "Better be sure than sorry," and I want to repeat that as strongly as I can.
A few weeks ago I had a wonderful experience with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. We spent the whole of a Sunday night going round a Royal Ordnance Factory. The training that I received to equip me to fulfil my employment made me a critical observer, but I was delighted with all that I saw in that factory. Knowing the game that often goes on, I wandered away from the official party and watched things from a distance. I talked to shop stewards and to as many ordinary men and women as I could. The only complaint I had to make as a result of that night's experience is that so far as that factory is concerned the workpeople's representatives are not consulted enough. I would have liked to develop that point further, because it is all too common, but I cannot do it within the limited time available. The lay-out, the organisation, the efficiency and output of that factory are remarkable achievements and reflect great credit on all concerned. Tears of joy came into my eyes when I thought of what we could do if we had that state of organisation throughout the country. We have not yet got it. We can get it. We must secure it.
The people of this country are worthy of a much better state of organisation than we have had up to the present. Everywhere one goes among the people one realises that with the spirit of the British people we could move mountains if we had the organisation to do it. The workpeople are sound. If anyone doubts that, let them go among the people as the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Supply and the Prime Minister constantly do. At the same time, no one should be allowed to take advantage of the spirit of the people. No one should be allowed to take advantage of their devotion and loyalty. Had there been time, I could have shown that welfare, transport, reorganisation of women and the welfare and care of children are a disgrace to every one of us in this House. The reasonable grievances of the people should be dealt with promptly. This is put in a better form than I can put it in the "Manchester Guardian" of 29th November, 1941, in a

leading article written from an industrial centre where the writers know the conditions of our people, not written in Fleet Street:
Much progress has been made, but we are still deplorably backward in our provision of canteens, hostels and works amenities, in the organisation of transport"—
and what a sorry tale we could tell, if only there were more time, about people lining up in the pouring rain and the fog night after night after having done 10 or 12 hours' work—
in meeting the special difficulties of the married women on whom we must mainly rely to staff many of our new munitions factories. Little encouragement is to be drawn from the records of Government departments in the provision of day nurseries or school feeding. Maximum national effort means not only a new phase of man-power policy but also a new phase on all sides of the home front.
The Minister of Supply and the Parliamentary Secretary went to Manchester a few weeks ago to address a trade union conference composed of area officials, branch officials, shop stewards and men from the shops. I wish the Cabinet could have been present, as well as hon. and right hon. Members in this House. They would have seen that every penny spent upon education in this country has been well spent. The Minister of Supply was excellent. He did not take up the attitude "I am the Minister, I know it all,"—in the way that one or two hon. Gentlemen did who stretched their legs full length when they sat here and, when some of us walked by, never moved, and gave us a look that made us have the impression that they were thinking "What are you doing here?" That kind of attitude is all too prevalent in British public life. It is an attitude that is all too prevalent in the workshops. When shop stewards have been elected to represent the men, or when a man has been elected to represent the Parliamentary party here, that man is as good as any other man in this land. He is speaking on behalf of the people he is representing, and if democracy means anything he should be listened to in a way in which he is not listened to in many parts of the country. After the conference which the Minister of Supply addressed responsible men in industry said to me "He made us feel we want to do more." Here is one letter which I received:
I had the honour to be present as a visitor at the conference of the trades councils which took place in Manchester, and I should like to


congratulate you on such an extremely stimulating and inspiring conference.
We ought to bring about that spirit throughout the country. It is not the managements who are to blame—in the main; it is certainly not the workpeople; and therefore there must be some other fundamental reason why we are not obtaining the maximum output. Let me make it clear that on the need for increasing production there was complete unanimity in that conference. The Minister saw how the workpeople felt about it. The Parliamentary Secretary will substantiate me when I say that the workpeople feel they are being held back, and I have no hesitation in saying that they are being held back, and I shall produce evidence to show that before I conclude. I have here a letter which anyone can examine on condition that he does not make use of it, because I have suffered from victimisation and know what it means. It is a letter from the works committee at one of the largest aircraft factories in the country, signed by the whole of the shop stewards. There is not a nom de plume on it, and it is not a round robin. They are men with the strength of character to sign their names. In this letter is evidence that we are as yet nowhere near fully organised to obtain the maximum output. Here is a report in the "Daily Herald" of 20th September, 1941:
The discharge by an engineering firm in the north-west of a number of skilled fitters engaged in making tanks has occasioned surprise in the factory and district. When an official of the firm was approached he explained that there might be temporary trouble… At the very least, said the Amalgamated Engineering Union official, ' this is one more case in which there has been failure to take the men into the confidence of the firm about any real reason for a shortage of work.'
How did the people react to this? Let me make it clear that I know the difficulties and make all reasonable allowances for them—new types requiring new jigs and tools, with all that that means, and questions of material and dispersal. That is the background. Let us see how it affects the men. Men have worked overtime and worked at week-ends for months and months, for years in some cases. They not only work overtime but they work quickly. Then they are suddenly discharged—two hours' notice for one

man, perhaps a week's notice, at the very most, for another man. The man goes home and says to his wife, "I have been discharged." The wife cannot understand it. Government speakers go about making appeal after appeal, my hon. Friends appeal to their fellow trade unions to exert themselves to obtain the maximum production, they go to the pit-tops at the week-end and appeal to the miners, and then engineers go home and say to their wives, "We have been discharged." The wife cannot understand it, the children cannot understand it, it becomes the talk of the whole neighbourhood. Many of these mothers and fathers have sons and brothers, aye, even daughters, in the Navy, the Air Force and the Army. Just imagine the moral effect of a situation of that kind.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: The hon. Member says, to my great surprise, that he knows of skilled engineers who are out of work. Will he kindly send them to my works, because I can find them employment straight away?

Mr. Smith: We cannot measure the effect of the loss of good will, the effect on future production of a policy of that kind. The men are told, "You are redundant," and they ask indignantly, "How can we be redundant in a situation of this kind?" After two years and three months of war no man should be discharged through slackness at one factory. Transfers should be arranged. Changes should be explained to the men. I will guarantee that if explanations were made to the men they would be responsive to treatment of that kind. I have a report which reveals a shocking state of affairs in the third year of the war It is the report of a meeting that was held at the Central Library, Manchester, at the request of the Controller-General of Machine Tools. It states:
Experiences show that while some firms have tools not in immediate requirement, other firms are in urgent need of them.
That is the state of affairs after two years of war. I could give other extracts if there were time to do so. My point is that we must have complete re-organisation of the Regional areas. Decentralisation is vital. Executive authority must, within reason, be given to the Regional and Area Boards. In the main, the large-scale plants in this country are efficiently run, but the benefits of their


advanced technique, process departments, research departments, micromotion study and scientific methods of production are retained for themselves. We cannot afford a policy of isolation in this matter.
On 12th November a letter in the "Manchester Guardian" said:
We joke and complain about the forms that we fill up. We are accustomed to that, and accept it as part of the burden that must be borne. We take them lying down, like a patient camel awaiting the last straw. The matter is becoming serious …. We must wait while the machine functions in its own ponderous ways. Letters to M.P.'s, telegrams to Departments and telephone calls to personal friends in Whitehall are of no avail. We must win the war at Whitehall speed, and no faster. Can nothing be done about it?
No one is to be blamed for that position. It is due to the superimposition of our war needs upon the pre-war Civil Service machine. There is the danger of Whitehall becoming top-heavy. All this is evidence of the need for a real planned economy in this country and for decentralisation, which involves regional autonomy and executive authority. The evidence which I have produced— and there is more I could produce if I had time—proves the need for a national planned policy. The handing-over or the transfer of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Dalmuir, and the rumours of more to come, have created concern throughout the country. As this question is to be raised upon the Adjournment, I do not intend to pursue it at this stage, but I hope that some definite statement will be made by the Government as soon as possible on this issue.
We in the trade union movement have given nearly our all in order to contribute towards the national effort. The Relaxation of Customs Agreement— hon. Members will realise what that means to the engineering industry—dilution with the maximum co-operation in training, the Essential Work Order, with the tying of men to their jobs, have meant a great deal to our people. They have given the maximum output and have worked not only overtime but at the week-end without any quibbling. Compare this record with what has happened under the Act, passed in May, 1940, which gave the Government power to deal with essential services, persons and property. We are entitled to ask why that Act has not been implemented. The test we apply to everything is whether it is essential for the efficient prosecution of

the war. The Motion refers to the maximum national effort, and we want the maximum national effort. That means that all men, essential services and property should be put upon a national basis and upon National Service.
Up to now we have had a steady improvisation. Take the case of transport. Hon. Members from industrial centres are bound to be concerned about problems of transport. Just as health depends upon purity of the blood-stream, so our economic stability and our war effort depend upon the efficiency of the transport system, yet we continue to play about with it. To obtain results, we should organise industry on a more efficient and planned basis, and that can be done only by real State control and, where this is essential for the successful prosecution of the war, by State ownership as well. For months before the war I served upon a committee which contributed to one of the most constructive proposals ever formulated by our movement. It was entitled "Labour and Defence." It suggested that efficient machinery and real State control were essential.
The technical advantages of real State planning and control are not generally appreciated. If there were time, I could quote from a speech I made in this House on 21st September, 1939, dealing with the matter. Our experience in the last war proves, as does the report of the Royal Commission which investigated the private manufacture of armaments, that we have an unanswerable case this morning. Mr. L. M. Lloyd, a distinguished civil servant during the last war, wrote a book, as the result of his experiences, entitled "Experiments in State Control." He wrote:
To wage war effectively involves replacing private enterprise by collective organisation.
That is our case this morning. By the end of the last war, the Ministry of Munitions controlled practically the whole industrial life of our country. The nation concentrated all its great strength and skill on victory; we are not anywhere near to doing so yet in this war. We must do it. Our people are asking for it, and it is the intention of this Motion to press for the carrying out of that policy. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), from whom I differed at the time—I believe in giving credit where it is due —has constantly, since the beginning of


the war, raised this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has pointed the way. The other day he indicated the direction in which people want to go. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster), speaking the other day, supported those two hon. Members, and said that he was speaking for a large number of hon. Members in this House. If that is so, let the House of Commons assert itself this day and say to the Government, "We will pass this Motion. Our interpretation of National Service is that it should be applied to all the resources of the country."
We are now in the third year of the war, but there is yet no real co-ordination of our industrial effort. I want everyone who takes part in this Debate, irrespective of his political opinions, to remember that we are calling for the efficient prosecution of the war, and I ask them to support our Motion on that ground. The basis for the glorious resistance of the heroic Russian people was laid by successive five-year plans. No nation can afford to muddle through in these days. No person who says, "We will muddle through" is aware of what we are up against. We cannot afford that state of mind; we cannot afford slipshod methods, and out-of-date ideas should be ruthlessly cut out. Hence the need for a plan. Here I have a plan, which I hope will be considered by the Government for it has been prepared for them. We have had conference after conference throughout the country. So far as the trades union movement is concerned, it has proved to be the core of the heroic resistance of the British people, and the trades union movement asks for an examination of that plan. Here it is in minature. In this we have the support of the Prime Minister. If anyone doubts that, let me draw his attention to the OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1939. I shall never forget that hon. Members used to flock into the House to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak, though in the main there were only a few great, noble and young men who stood by him. The Prime Minister said on that occasion:
What is essential is that there should be one Minister able to give executive directions through the whole field of munitions production, or almost the whole field, because there is a special reservation to be made with regard to the warship building of the Admiralty… I believe that expert opinion is almost over-

whelmingly in favour of one; man having the power of giving direction over this field, …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1939; cols. 251–3, Vol. 344.]
That is our case. There should be a real plan; there should be maximum output, which can be obtained only upon an efficient basis of production. There should be decentralisation throughout the country. More local autonomy should be given to the Regional and Area Boards. In that way we should obtain the maximum production. Seeing that our people are giving their all, and have thrown all into the melting pot, there ought at the same time to be real State control where it is essential for the efficient prosecution of the war. As in the case of transport, there ought to be no hesitation about effecting national ownership.
For some time I have been visiting works; I have talked to men of all grades, including managerial people—big men, worthy of the times, not little men or quibblers, for these times demand real men—and I have observed and surveyed, and I am convinced of the need for a plan of this kind. That is the reason why I put this plan before the Government to-day. I have here a case of a man working in Lancashire for 96 hours without a stop. That is typical of the spirit and determination of our people. After Norway, with the coming-in of this new Government, life became dynamic in Britain. As you went about among the people you felt a great urge, a new hope, and when my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal introduced that Bill in May, 1940, at last the people of this country were convinced that the Government meant business. We want a repetition of that. Here we have an opportunity. This House will pass the Motion, but in addition to passing the Motion, we need to be worthy of the people. We can be worthy of the people only by bringing about a real state of National Service. The greater the danger, the greater the need for organisation; we cannot afford a screw loose. This war is a war of steel, mechanised, and of the application of scientific and engineering skill to all the resources we can get together.
For years before the war that bumptious bully Mussolini and that criminal Hitler poured scorn upon our democratic institutions. They said that our people were decadent. They got their answer from our Air Force; they have had their


answer from the Navy, and they will get their answer yet from the Allied Armies of freedom if we will give them overwhelming superiority in equipment. For years before the war the Fascist reptiles poured poison into the veins of the people throughout the world. Some of that poison found its way. into the veins of people in London, through von Ribbentrop's wine, but the British people to whom we belong, the British people who are a virile and a great people, had been inoculated against that poison by centuries of struggle for freedom. It was the organised workers who proved to be the core of British stability. It was the organised workers who kept this country on the rails during the difficult period. Now, throughout the world, the democratic forces are gathering strength, led by our great and courageous Prime Minister. This strength is gathering momentum, and to-day our movement says that we must harness this growing strength. Let us have real National Service, applied not only to men and women but to industry and to all the essential services, on a planned scale, in order that we can provide the Allied Armies of freedom with overwhelming superiority.

Major Oscar Guest: In the very short time in which I shall occupy the attention of the House to-day I wish to say a few words from the point of view of one who has been working in production since the war began. The Motion which we are discussing concerns the ways in which we can most usefully employ further man-and woman-power. There are two points to which I should like to draw attention with regard to both man- and woman-power in munition factories. We work at the present time on what is called the Schedule of Reserved Occupations, and I very much hope that that will be considerably modified under the new scheme. I think the Schedule of Reserved Occupations works badly in both ways. The system on which it works takes the form of trying to save for munition work certain individuals whom we and the representatives of labour believe to be essential for work in munition factories. But it is also used as a means of sheltering a number of people who would not really answer to the Reserved Schedule in which they are graded and who would probably be much better in the Fighting Services.
So I would like to suggest that representatives of the Ministry of Labour should visit the factories—as, of course, they already do—to consult with managements, both of private firms and of, ordnance factories, and discuss the merits of the workers, male and female, with a view to deciding whether they would be better employed in industry or in the Fighting Services. It is almost impossible to get the best distribution of man- and woman-power on a Schedule which alters year by year according to their ages. After all, every manager knows the workers in his factory. He can put forward to the Ministry of Labour representative his views as to who is useful in the factory and who he believes would be more useful in the Fighting Services. I see that the Prime Minister, in his speech yesterday, said that reservation would be on an individual basis. I had hoped that might be the intention of the Ministry of Labour, because I do not think that the Schedule has really worked well in the past, though, perhaps, it was necessary in the early days.
There is one other point to which I should like to draw attention, and that is the system of volunteering, which seems to cut right across the scheme of the Ministry of Labour. For certain Services men in certain professions may volunteer regardless of whether they are in a reserved occupation or not. I think that a number of people volunteer through enthusiasm and the best spirit. I know that a great many volunteer because they are afraid they will be called up later and would rather pick their Service occupation. Surely, it should be for the Ministry of Labour representative, after consulting the factory management, to decide whether a man is most usefully employed in the Services or the factory; for example, whether a man is better as a tool maker or an air mechanic. I hope that will be done in the future. We must all approve of the aim of this Motion, but I wonder whether it is not time for us to have some national register of all men from 16 up to whatever top age is considered right, and every woman too. Their occupation should be decided on some national system as to where they would be best employed.
The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has voiced the point of view of national ownership of factories, mines and railways. I do not profess to have a


strong view on that. I am inclined to think, on that point, that the Ministries have enough to do to look after the ordnance factories they have set up all over the Kingdom, without taking further trouble on their backs at the present moment. It seems to me an issue which might be more wisely decided in the future. I did agree with what he said about our effort being a more national effort. I feel sure that workers of all grades, whether in munitions or the Services, would like to feel that they are equally vitally employed in winning the war. I suppose it is impossible for people in munitions to be given any form of uniform. Could they, by a badge, be given some status in that way? After all, when you join one of the three Fighting Services, you wear a uniform, you have a status, you are supposed to be doing the right thing for your country. If you work in a munitions factory, and the Government, or Ministry of Labour, decide where you work, I think those people deserve that status too. Just as in the Fighting Services not everyone is in the firing line, so in industry. Not everyone employed is working on a machine or at a bench. There must be direction, servicing and so on. I should like to feel that everyone in munitions, whatever their employment may be, is regarded as pulling his or her weight in the war just as much as those in the uniformed Services.
I believe it is only by some national register of the man- and woman-power of this country, and by the Ministry of Labour deciding where that power is best utilised, that we shall get this national effort mentioned by the previous speaker. We want a plan. From the point of view of continuity of work what the hon. Member said is very true, about men being stood off because work ceased through causes which are not the fault either of management or of the workers. We want a plan. That plan, to my mind, will not come through the owner of the factory or the mine. It has to come through the direction of the War Cabinet. As far as munitions production is concerned, which is the only facet I know anything about, if we could have our orders as to what we were to produce towards the war effort, say 18 months ahead, we could give better output. It is the short policy of war requirements which makes a difficulty. I know well that policy must be short some-

times because the requirements of the Fighting Services change as the character of the war changes, but the more we can have a long-term policy of what we are intended to produce, the better the result we shall be able to give.
Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister, of Supply, has told us, I think on the wireless, that he wants 30,000 tanks and the guns and equipment to go with them, and the Prime Minister has told us that aeroplanes, and their guns and equipment, are wanted in ever-increasing numbers. It seems to me that the munition worker holds as important a position in this war, as vital a position, is doing as yeoman service, as any of his brothers, or now, his sisters, in the Fighting Services. I wish we could see some recognition of their work. I wish they could be recognised, whether by some badge, or some other way, so that the munition worker may feel that he has the approval, not only of the local management for whom he is working, but of the Government, through the Ministry of Labour, that he is pulling his weight in the right quarter. I welcome the Motion and the Bill which will follow. I hope very much that these two or three points I have tried to bring forward will be seriously considered.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) upon his maiden speech from the Opposition Box. I fancy it must be somewhat of an ordeal, but the hon. Member may be assured that he has acquitted himself well. I think the whole House rejoices in his well-deserved promotion, and we all wish him well in the larger responsibilities he has now undertaken. Fortunately, this kind of maiden speech is one which permits me, without breaking the customs of the House, to reply to it, and say exactly what I think of its substance. I am sure that the hon. Member, having spoken officially for his party, and spoken plainly, will not resent an equally plain reply. With the early part of his speech I found myself in very general agreement, but with the underlying theme, the nationalisation—I quote the Amendment—
of all industries vital to our war effort,
which means practically all the industries of the nation, I must say that I was in complete disagreement with him. I want to say why, and I am sure that in doing


so I shall represent the great body of opinion in this House. It appears, from the speech of the hon. Member—

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: On a point of Order. The hon. Member seems to be discussing an Amendment on the Order Paper which has not yet been called and which may not be called. Are we entitled to discuss an Amendment of that kind or not?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): So far, the hon. Member has not said anything out of Order. He is quite entitled, of course, to refer to anything on the Order Paper relating to this subject.

Mr. Stewart: I was referring mostly to the speech of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) yesterday and the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke to-day. They made it perfectly clear what they wanted. The Labour party— I do not know whether officially or not— have new decided to launch a campaign for nothing short of "Socialism in our time." The fact that it is also war-time does not deter them; on the contrary, it affords them, as they think, a Heavensent opportunity to renew their party claims to bring about something for which in peace-time they have consistently failed to gain electoral approval. I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Stoke and the hon. Member for Llanelly believe sincerely in the wisdom of nationalising munition works, coalmining, transport, and the other great industries on which the British people have depended and will always depend for their livelihood and for national prosperity. We all know that hon. Members opposite regard Socialism as the ideal of political effort. But the great majority of this House, reflecting, I am sure, an equal majority outside, do not share that view. Their ideal and my ideal are exactly the opposite. I believe, with the same passionate conviction as they, that the life-spring of national prosperity and national progress lies not in State action, but in individual effort, individual enterprise, and individual initiative.

Mr. G. Macdonald: During the war?

Mr. Stewart: I am coming to that. That is my belief—that the life blood of national well-being is individual effort. In such an emergency as now exists,

State control and direction are of course inevitable for the duration of the emergency; and the nation is ready to face that. I have always said that. I said it long before the war. In March, 1939, in the teeth of the Whips' opposition, I joined with the present Prime Minister and 32 other rebels on this side of the House in tabling a Motion to the following effect:
In view of the grave dangers by which Great Britain and the Empire are now threatened … this House is of opinion that … a National Government should be formed on the widest possible basis, and that such a Government should be entrusted with full powers over the nation's industry, wealth and man-power, to enable this country to put forward its maximum military effort in the shortest time.
I stand by that declaration to-day. But it is entirely different from what the hon. Member for Stoke is asking for—universal and permanent State ownership and control. The country, as I have said, is prepared to accept a large measure of State control of activities during the war; but just as the trade unions, as the hon. Member said, have agreed to abandon certain rights for the moment, on the clear understanding that these rights shall be restored when the war is over, so the nation as a whole, which has offered far greatersacrifices, expects that its traditional liberties and its freedom from the shackles of Whitehall will be returned to it in fullest measure when peace arrives. And that is a bond as solemn as—nay, infinitely more solemn, because it has not been made the subject of any precise guarantees—any made with the T.U.C. Still more it is in fact to restore and safeguard for ever those vital liberties that this war is being fought. What a mockery it would be if, after all the sacrifice and bloodshed, we were to succeed in defeating one form of tyranny merely to discover that we had set up another in our own country in its place. I do not wish to exacerbate feelings, but on an issue of this kind it is far better to make it plain where we stand. I say to the Labour party, this war is not being fought to establish Socialism in this, or, I hope, in any other, time, and any attempt to introduce it now, in the permanent form which hon. Members opposite clearly envisage, would be playing with fire. Any such attempt would split this country from top to bottom, destroy national unity, and thereby imperil the success of our great war effort. I offer that warning,


politely but quite firmly, to hon. Members opposite, and I hope they will heed it. If the Labour party want to win this war in the quickest possible time, with the least possible sacrifice of life, let them put into cold storage, for the duration of the emergency, their own political panaceas. There will be plenty of opportunity to air them after the war. In the meantime, let them join with the rest of us in getting on with the job.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member has misrepresented our position. Our position is that, on the Motion in which the Government call for the maximum national' effort, we claim that the whole resources of the State should be put on the same basis of national service as that on which men and women are being put. That is quite a different position from that suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member said, and the Amendment says, that the objective is
public ownership and control.
It says, "ownership."

Mr. Smith: Where it is essential for the efficient and successful prosecution of the war.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Llanelly, in my presence, and, no doubt, reflecting the views of his party, specifically mentioned the munitions industry, transport, and coalmining. There is not much left.
On the main issue with which we are now concerned, I think the country will acclaim the new measures announced by the Prime Minister. They are wide and drastic proposals, reflecting the immensity of the task confronting us. They will serve to demonstrate to the world, and particularly to our friends abroad, the seriousness with which the British nation girts itself for the third year of war. But these proposals will come as no surprise to our own people. The wonder will be not that such extended mobilisation is now required, but rather that it has taken so appallingly long for the Government to demand them. For here, as in so many other forms of national development, this Government, like its predecessor, is and has all along been far behind public opinion and public will. Its tardiness in recognising the peculiar character of this

war and in realising the public will in these man-power matters has appeared to many of us, almost incredible. And the more so when we have seen, side by side with this timorousness on the part of the Administration as a whole, the magnificent example of duty and service performed daily since even he assumed office, by the Prime Minister himself. Surely if ever inspiration was offered for great deeds, it was offered here; for surely no national leader has, by his own bearing, ever presented a nobler incentive to a fighting people to give all and dare all in the national cause. Beyond all doubt the people have responded to that great example. They are ready and eager— they have always been—to give of their brains and of their hands whatever they could best serve the nation.
But how poorly we have rewarded them. How miserably positive action— positive, organised calls upon their patriotism—and here I agree with the hon. Member—have lagged behind the first, fine enthusiasm that filled their hearts. And the tragedy is that I doubt whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister realises it. Can it be, I wonder, that the very greatness of his own stature prevents him appreciating the feelings of lesser men? The other day, for example, he delivered a moving address to the boys of Harrow. He said:
We must thank God for allowing each of us to play a part in making these days so memorable in the history of our race.
The same thought, no doubt his, appeared in the Gracious Speech:
The fulfilment of the task to which we are committed will call for the unsparing effort of every one of us.
Yes, Sir; but how comparatively few of us are given the opportunity to make that unsparing effort or play that memorable part. Hon Members who have spoken in this Debate have expressed similar sentiments. Despite all that has happened in the two long years of war—all the talk, all the bragging, all the bold assurances from the Government—yes, and all the varied, crying needs of the time—how many tens of thousands of our countrymen and women cry out to-day for the mere chance to serve but cry in vain? Lord Beaverbrook heard evidence at Manchester of willing labour turned away in that great centre of munitions work. The post-bag of every Member of Parlia-


ment contains appeals from keen volunteers whom nobody seems to want. How many other tens of thousands are eating their hearts out in dead-end jobs which are entirely unsuited to their temperaments and abilities in Government Departments, in Royal Ordnance factories, in the Services, the Army and the Navy— I have been there and seen it—or in other national organisations of one kind or another? How many others—I believe they are legion—are standing idle or are only half employed in war factories this very day, when they want to work, on account of ill-direction, or, as the hon. Member said, more often through sheer mismanagement on the part of the State Departments?
The reports of the Select Committee are filled with cases of this kind, and Lord Beaverbrook heard of them as well. Did the Prime Minister but know of the despair and frustration that affect devoted men and women in every part of the country; did he but close his ears to the always glowing reports, and listen sometimes, and without prejudice, to those that do not seek his favour did he but appreciate the bad as well as the good—and there is much good—that marks our war effort at the point of human labour, he would understand why and to what dangerous extent the country falls short of that all-in inspired effort, of which he himself is the brave example, and for which he calls in every speech, and without which the end of this agonising, bloody business cannot be brought within sight, much less within our grasp. It is in the light of these considerations—the peculiar character of the war and the needs arising from it and the exceptional use to be made of manpower now and presently to be available that the country will, and, I submit, the House must, examine these new measures.
Consider this problem of modern war. It is unlike anything that has gone before. In the last conflict—and I was there like some of my hon. Friends—munitions were, of course, of enormous importance, but for the most part men marched and fought on their feet and relied upon their personal arms to defend themselves. For that reason the paramount consideration was combatant man-power, and in fact, the side won which placed the largest number of infantry divisions in the front line. Accordingly, Army conscription

became inevitable, but industrial conscription was avoided. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whom we hear too seldom, put his finger on the heart of the difference in this war at the weekend when he referred to the failure
to realise how greatly the machine has advanced in importance in comparison with the men
and, he added, to his credit, that
the Government itself had perhaps realised the significance of this rather late.
Yes, rather late. I wonder how many precious lives have been lost in the last year, in the effective reign of this Government, on account of that tardiness to realise the esentials of modern warfare. Let us hope the Libyan campaign will hasten and complete that realisation, for Libya has proved, not only that machine-power predominates and determines the course of battle, but, much more significant, that with every advance in machine-power there is a wholly disproportionate increase in machine casualties.
The despatches of the last few weeks speak of battlefields strewn with broken tanks and shattered vehicles, and these despatches merely colour the plainer official statements that both sides have suffered serious losses in machines, as a result of which for many days the battle was brought to a virtual halt. What number of tanks have been destroyed we do not know, but the numbers destroyed in Russia are on record. I am informed that Russia's admitted losses—I am therefore taking the lowest estimate—in the first five months of war amounted to no less than 7,900 tanks and 6,400 aeroplanes. To make good those losses without any provision of reserves means an annual output from the factories of 19,000 tanks and almost 16,000 aeroplanes. That is for one front alone and, as I have said, makes no provision for reserves. These enormous figures offer some measure of our own responsibilities if we are to win decisive victory within a reasonable time. Lord Beaverbrook has declared a target during 1942 of 30,000 tanks. He has told us that his figure reflects his estimate of home production and imports. I hope that that is not the figure which the Government consider to be adequate for our needs. The grim truth is that it is not 30,000 but more nearly 300,000 tanks that the Allied Armies will require, and must produce, if Hitler is to be destroyed on all fronts, within any measurable time.
It is against that massive, frightful but compelling need that we must view this new call upon the nation's man power. That it is right to summon all to the country's service goes without saying. There can be no question about granting the powers asked for. But it is not enough to seek powers. This House must have the assurance that the powers will be used—and used effectively. We cannot afford to waste another 18 months as we have wasted those since May of last year. Let me give a single example. One of the reasons why we have not yet come within sight of maximum production, or, to adopt Lord Beaverbrook's pregnant phrase, why we "have not yet got steam up," is that we have failed to make effective use of the smaller industrial establishments scattered in their thousands throughout the country. Here I think I shall have the support of my hon. Friend opposite. Most, if not all, of these establishments are of course doing some kind of war work. We know that most of them are now supplied with the requisite tools, and all of them are impatient to give of their best to the national production drive. But I have yet to hear of one of these smaller establishments that is working to full capacity. In Scotland— and I make this precise statement—I believe it is true to say that, taking these smaller establishment's as a whole, they are only working at about 60 per cent. of their possible output. Why is that? Recent Government statements would lead one to suppose that the chief cause was shortage of labour. This was in fact said in another place, but, as regards Scotland, that is not true. Generally speaking, there is no shortage of labour in these smaller establishments, at least in Scotland, and I have reason to understand that it is so in England as well. The reason why the night shifts of smaller concerns are employing only 25 per cent. of those engaged during the day, and why only one out of four machine tools is working at night, is not through lack of workers, but directly on account of lack of work and lack of materials. That is not my opinion; it is vouched for by leading industrialists and men holding official positions in Scotland, and can be checked by the Minister at any time. I would invite him to check it now.
This is a most serious situation, and it is the almost universal experience of these

lesser—but in this war all-important— firms, employing as they do at least 50 per cent. of the total industrial workers in the country. This is the kind of thing which I should have thought the Minister of Labour would have leapt on. For was it not he who recently said in this House "there is only one way to keep up output and that is by keeping up the rhythm and timing and flow of materials"? Maybe he has protested. If so, I am sure the whole House will support him in making further attacks on the Departments concerned. For surely this is the kind of thing, affecting all the Supply Departments, which ought to be capable of remedy. The Minister of Supply told us recently that we have "plenty of raw materials"; indeed, he went so far as to say that "we have a surplus of supplies." We all know the insatiable demand for war products of one kind and another. Tank accessories, we are told are demanded from every establishment. Then why those repeated stoppages of supplies and cancellation of orders? I can well understand the case of aeroplane production where changes take place in the form of a job; but such things ought not to occur generally and upon such a scale, in such a war as this when we are supposed to be fighting for our very lives. Nor are these sudden stoppages of raw materials and supplies all the result of sinkings in the Atlantic. No. They arise chiefly because of thoroughly bad organisation on the part of Supply Departments; and that is something we can and must put right. I suggest that the best way to do this is to adopt the suggestion made by a number of hon. Members here—to decentralise the administration of this whole effort and give the regional boards, which are now, in the words of many industrialists in Scotland, a waste of time, real executive authority to plan and control the whole area under their charge. At least the chairman of these boards should have executive powers.
I am not able to estimate the amount of war production which has been forfeited through the defects I have mentioned, but I will give this sample figure of woman-power which has been lost to the State. I am informed on the best authority that, given suitable opportunities for work near their homes, there are no fewer than 20,000 immobile women in the east central


area of Scotland who could be harnessed directly to the war effort, but who are now pulling very little weight. I make that statement after due consideration. I believe that with careful organisation the smaller industrial establishments in that area could be made to absorb nearly the whole of that great labour force. If that be true of one district, not excessively populated, what vast armies of new labour at present rendering practically no direct service to the State, because they are tied to their homes and there is no work for them, might not be added to our productive effort? I invite the Minister to consider these matters with the least possible delay, and in the same spirit of helpful suggestion I give him this useful tip. Let him read the history of the Ministry of Munitions in the last war and in particular the memorandum issued in August, 1917, by the then Minister of Munitions, who is now leading His Majesty's Government. To save his time, I will read a single extract from that memorandum which might have been written to-day, so closely does it correspond with present conditions. It is an extract from a Ministry of Munitions memorandum issued by Mr. Churchill in August, 1917, for the guidance of his Department, and says:
In the fourth year of war we are no longer tapping the stored-up resources of national industry or mobilising them and applying them for the first time to war. The magnitude of the effort and achievement approximates continually to the limits of possibility. Already in many directions the frontiers are in sight. It is therefore necessary not simply to expand, but to go back over the ground already covered and by more economical processes, by closer organisation and by thrifty and harmonius methods, to glean and gather a further reinforcement of war power.
That same instruction might again be issued to the Production Committee of the War Cabinet. There are countless exam-pies to be found where retrenchment is required, re-examination is demanded and better organisation is necessary. The whole nation is behind the Government in the new powers they ask for, but it demands and insists that these powers shall be used and that the labour at present available shall be employed to the fullest possible extent. It is not satisfied with the situation as it is now.
I am sorry to detain the House longer than I intended, but let me finish on this note. I was one of those who supported the Prime Minister at a moment when he

had not many supporters in this House. I daresay he did not know of it, and my aid probably did not matter very much. I was unimportant and inconspicuous, but I supported him because I felt he was right. That being so, I feel I have the right to appeal to him to-day. If it was proper then to demand complete mobilisation of our powers and exercise those powers six months before this war started, is it not even more necessary to do so in the third year of this immense conflict? We placed our trust in the Prime Minister then, and we, with the whole nation, place our trust in him now. He occupies a position akin to that of the great Augustus of Rome. He enjoys an autoritas in greater measure than any man in our history, even including my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) during the last war. He has immense, almost unbridled, authority; the nation trusts him, but it demands that he, and especially his Ministers, shall use that trust in the fullest measure.

Mr. A. Edwards: In the course of my remarks, I shall have occasion to refer to some of the things said by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), but I would like to begin by asking him a question. He attacked the policy of the party to which I belong, and I understood him to say that at the end of the war everything must go back to where it was, pure individualism. I would like to have that on record for the hon. Member's benefit and for ours. It is a very serious thing to suggest that, after pooling the best of our minds, parties and policies during the war, those who happen to have power when the war ends will insist on depriving us of all the benefits that have resulted from this pooling. Am I to understand that the hon. Member did not mean that?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I think I made myself clear.

Mr. Edwards: I thought so, too. I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith). It was a magnificent speech, the first speech that he has made from the Front Bench. He was very serious and earnest in everything that he said, but, as he was speaking, I wondered whether all the things that he said so seriously, and to which the House listened with such attention, would receive


the slightest attention from anybody hereafter. In some of the charges that I shall make, I shall be a little more specific. In the course of the Debate, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, on which I have had the privilege of serving for the last two years, was challenged because of something he said in his speech. My right hon Friend the Minister of Labour said, "I wish the hon. Member would give us details, because we would like to follow up these things." I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary, who represents the most important Department about which I shall speak, that I shall make some serious statements, and I hope he will challenge me to give proof of any statements which he considers to be exaggerated. Naturally, the information that comes to those of us who sit on the Select Committee cannot be used freely in the House or in the country, but the general impression as to the efficiency of oar effort is a very important matter that ought to be, and must be, discussed in the House. I shall suggest in my remarks that if we do not face the difficulties confronting us at the present time we shall have some very serious setbacks.
I am told that an hon. Member has said during the Debate that in our production efforts we are now making orderly and majestic progress. To anybody who knows the facts, that is a complete distortion, for there is neither order nor really serious progress, and indeed, in many respects there is retrogression. In its 21st Report, the Select Committee had occasion to say that
the science of production is not well known in the Production Departments.
That is true. And not only is it not well known; I do not think it is much cared about, and I do not think anybody is very serious about the matter. If one talks about a system, a plan, or a method of production with permanent officials, they rather smile at one. On one occasion the Prime Minister said in the House that we should not be mealy-mouthed about these things when our lives and our future are at stake. That is so. For two years I have served on the Select Committee, and I imagine that I have visited as many factories and studied as many statistics as any hon. Member in an endeavour to find out what

is wrong. I would like in future to spend a little of my time trying to get put right some of the things we have found to be wrong.
The real difficulty is that in most cases the permanent officials do not pay the slightest attention to the Reports of the Select Committee, and I am not sure the House has done justice to those Reports. In two years there has not been a Debate on the work of the Select Committee, although it has been brought up incidentally in one or two Debates on Production. In the absence of full Estimates being presented to the House, the Select Committee' are responsible for supervising expenditure and reporting to the House on any extravagance. The Committee have had the greatest difficulty in convincing permanent officials that economy and efficiency are almost synonymous terms. I suppose we were expected to deal with a number of figures and to make suggestions for saving a few coppers here and there, but talk about waste of manpower, waste of material, and most important of all, waste of time, did not seem to come within the Committee's province. We had to establish that in our view economy meant efficiency, and in the end we were successful.
I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I have never known a man who was more devoted to his job than the hon. Member has been to his work. He has had a very heavy job. I have disagreed with him seriously on only one point. On one occasion, he told the House that the country was only 75 per cent. efficient. The Prime Minister challenged him, and believed that we were more than 75 per cent. efficient. I should sleep more comfortably to-night if I could believe that we had 75 per cent. of efficiency. The estimate of the hon. Member for Kidderminster was very flattering. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour have confirmed that view since then. The Minister of Supply asked the workers to double their September output in November. He could not have asked for that if we already had 75 per cent. efficiency. The Minister of Labour asked the workers to increase their output by 40 per cent., and said that it could be done. He would not have suggested that if we were 75 per cent. efficient. No, the estimate which the hon. Member for


Kidderminster gave was a very flattering one. The Minister of Supply has told us that all our machine-tool troubles are at an end and that we have all that we require. It is splendid to hear that. There is an abundance of raw materials. Then, if our potential superiority is colossal, we have to ask what is the matter. Is production all that it should be, seeing that we have all those advantages? And let hon. Members never lose sight of the fact that we have in this country all the advantages of a dictatorship without any of its defects. With the backing which he has at the present time, the Prime Minister can do anything that a dictator can do. There is no limit. We have in this country all the advantages formerly attributed to dictatorships, together with the additional advantage of useful criticism.
What, then, is wrong? I and some others have said before what we believe to be wrong, but it is a most unpopular thing to say. What is wrong is the machine, the thing that we call the Civil Service. I do not mean the Civil servants; do not let anybody say that I am taking an advantage and criticising Civil servants who cannot reply. I have been in contact with Civil servants very closely in recent years. Some of the best minds and most efficient men in the country are to be found in the Civil Service. They carry a very grave responsibility. But with the machine under which they have to work, they simply cannot do what is required. Everything in this country has speeded up except the Civil Service, which is so constructed that it cannot speed up. There is a limit to the speed of any machine; there is a very low limit to the speed of that machine. I say to the House deliberately that we have created a veritable Frankenstein which will destroy us if we do not deal with it. That is no exaggeration, and it is something which has to be faced. You can get the best brains you like from all industries, but as long as they have to go at the speed of the permanent officials, production will not be speeded up. That machine destroys and frustrates every effort.
Wherever I have found delays I have discovered that they have been frequently due to the throttling hands of the Treasury. The officials, with the best will in the world, cannot get the machine speeded up. Someone else will have to

do the work. I would like to take the House on a personally conducted tour of two or three Departments. I will tell the Parliamentary Secretary now that there is serious competition within his own Department, and not competition merely between his Department and another. It is a most serious matter indeed. Ministers know the conditions which exist better than anyone, because they are always having to fight with their Departments.

Mr. Simmonds: Can the hon. Member tell the House why, if what he says is true, so many of his hon. Friends are anxious to extend State control?

Mr. Edwards: I cannot, but I have no doubt that the hon. Member has, since the war, modified many of his own views. I would tell the House frankly that Socialism does not even remotely mean the inefficiency I have seen. I discussed this question with a high official, whose name is available to anyone. He believed that something could be done about the matter and agreed that there should be a speeding up, but he said that something would have to be done about it after the war. His idea was to tackle the problem after the war, but we want the problem tackled now.
In the course of my speech I have referred to the Treasury. Let me give an example of what I mean. It is the case of someone who went to the Ministry of Supply at the time when we were faced with the Battle of the Atlantic, and when we were losing ships at such a rate that every Minister was disturbed. This man wanted to manufacture something in this country which he claimed would save three ships out of four. That may have been an exaggeration, but suppose it would have saved one out of four. The experts agreed that in the national interest there should be a trial. Without the slightest right, and without affecting their consciences in any way, the Treasury held the matter up for months. They made certain conditions, which subsequently were reversed. That is what I mean about the throttling hand of the Treasury. The Treasury have no right to step in and stop a thing of that kind, which is a matter entirely outside their control.
I should now like to say a word about the Reports of the Select Committee on


National Expenditure. So far there have been 40 Reports. [Interruption.] Nothing I can say can be half so clever or biting as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's remarks when he used to attack these Departments before he was in office. It was a pleasure to listen to his speeches.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I do not think I have ever attacked a civil servant in my life, although on many occasions I have had great pleasure in attacking Ministers in this House.

Mr. Edwards: I am not attacking civil servants. I am talking about the system and the machine. No one knows better than the Minister that what I am saying is true, because he experiences these things in his Department every day.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member began by saying that he would make a series of specific charges. The first part of his speech he devoted to a series of generalisations, and so far he has mentioned only one case, about which he has given me no notice. I am not able to trace this case offhand, but perhaps he will give me the facts.

Mr. Edwards: I did not ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to reply. No doubt he will ride off on much easier things. As I say, the Committee on National Expenditure has issued 40 Reports. There has never been a reply to any one of these Reports in less than one month, and I find that on an average it takes four months to receive a reply. To be of value, these Reports must be acted upon at once, but that has never been the case. In one case it took no less than eight months to receive a reply, and in another case I believe that we had no reply at all, although we may have received one since I left the Committee. Let me give an example of what I think I must call studied insolence, because, let it be remembered, insolence to this Committee is insolence towards this House. This Committee is the only thing which stands between the House and this enormous expenditure. Taking the Fifteenth Report, published on 13th May, we find that the only response we got to it was on 10th October. This has not

been published, so I will not read it to the House; but no serious attempt was made to go into the details of that Report. Then there is the Twenty-fifth Report, which has just come out. There is an attempt in this case to deal with the details. Actually reference is made to forms.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member is now going into a detailed examination of the treatment of the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. I cannot connect that with the subject of man-power, and I must rule it out of Order.

Mr. Edwards: Then I will give an instance of the wastage of man-power. This was a statement by the General Secretary of the Inland Revenue. He said:
When the public learns what is going on, it will call a halt to muddle, duplication of forms and all the confusing paraphernalia of present methods. It is an antiquated system which imposes an intolerable burden in view of the millions of new Income Tax payers. These moth-eaten impediments in the smooth working of our machine have had no justification for 30 years. If only one of these processes could be eliminated, more than 10,000,000 entries a year would be saved.
That would take some man-power. This question of forms is one of the most serious things which the House will have to consider. A business man in my constituency, in sending statements to one Department, was compelled to send six extra copies to London. He wondered what would happen if he did not send the extra copies, so in one case he did not send them. No one said anything about them. He suspected that no one ever looked at them. For months now he has been doing business with a single form, and no one has asked for the duplicates again. There again I shall be very glad to give particulars. The Minister asked for some details of wastage in his Department. In one case they insisted on putting in their own machines, which were objected to, and on work being done in a particular way, and it was estimated that that resulted in the loss to the nation of 800,000 machine shells. That is a very serious thing. I shall be glad to give particulars. One frequently came across cases where people could not get fresh orders for commodities until the old contract had run out, with the result that there was always a complete stoppage in the factory.
There is a case where one factory had finished and a new factory has been started to do the same job, and the first factory has been put out of work. That is an instance of lack of planning in the Department. I was in a factory not long ago and saw a certain commodity being manufactured with 50 per cent. rejects. I am told of another place 95 per cent. of whose production was passed, but another Department came with a different gauge and rejected most of it. That is almost criminal. I could not put my finger on a single man who would be responsible. People do not do these things deliberately. There is no one who is visualising the whole machine. Anyone who has ever been in a control room in the Service will see a way out of the difficulty. It would not do for our fighting men not to have a picture of the whole. Ministers would learn a very important lesson if they could visualise their production in much the same way. It is more complicated, but it could be done in pretty much the same way. Can the Minister explain this? He knows that we have had very great difficulty in keeping up with our production of jigs. I was in a factory last week-end where the people were asked to make certain parts, and the Minister said, "How long will it take you to get into production?" They said they believed they could do it in a month, but they were told they could not get their jigs in less than six months. Probably they would have to wait six to nine months for jigs and gauges. [Interruption.] Of course, it depends on the type, but this particular type would take about six months. How is it that in the last few weeks there has been an advertisement in the "Times" asking for work to produce jigs?
When I was in America two years ago I had an opportunity of discussing with Mr. Purvis our methods of handling American production for this country. He warned me then, and I came back and saw the Minister of Supply and his officials and discussed with them Mr. Purvis's warning. Our method of handling was causing great disturbance in America, and they asked for more and more details of what we were doing. In one business that I am connected with we used to cable our orders and we had delivery in three weeks. As a result of the difference of method the comparison to-day is between

three weeks and three months. Eighteen months ago we were using machines that had come from America, costing £6,000, to do a certain job. I was in a Government factory recently and made inquiries about that particular machine. I saw the type of work being done, and I saw four of these machines. If they had been destroyed by enemy action, we should have had to wait for fresh ones. We begged of them to let us instal little machines for £100 each, but the Department would not allow it. They said it could not be done. When I was trying to speed that up and get these little things into the factory, I was accused by the Minister of trying to get more petrol for the benefit of my colleagues and myself. The work is so important that in recent weeks the hon. Gentleman's Department has been bringing them over in bombers.
A man came to me last week and said there were 1,000,000 tons of petrol lying at a certain aerodrome where he was working to put up the tanks to receive it. He said that they were anxious to get it underground, but this man could not get his works and tools to the job because he could not get the petrol. This 1,000,000 tons of aviation spirit has been exposed for six weeks in great danger because this man could not finish the job owing to the fact that he could not get the petrol. If I were the officer on the job I would have taken some of the aviation petrol to see that the job was finished. What would the House think if some business man spent £12,000,000 on a factory, and because of the clumsy system the whole of that £12,000,000 and thousands of workpeople were held up because a little thing like, let us say, a sparking plug was wanted? I can quote such a case.
With regard to the regional control, the hon. Member for Stoke was a member of a committee with me that went to interview the Minister of Supply to discuss regional control. We had studied this matter at some length, and we asked the Minister whether he would agree to certain suggestions we had to make. We suggested that the industrialists in each district should be made responsible for the programme of production for that district. They were the men who had to make the things, and we asked that they should be allowed to form a committee and carry the whole thing out under their own organisation


with the officials of the Ministry acting as liaison officers. The first Minister of Supply assured us that that was his plan. I wish Members could see the plan that operates in the regional control to-day. It must have been arranged by Heath Robinson. There is a committee of production and the Ministry of Supply organisation both fighting each other. The Department's officer used to come and place orders in the district without even informing the district control. The poor people did not know what orders had been placed. That has been remedied only recently. What the result of this competition between the production council and the Ministry is I do not know, but is a perfect scandal. If the hon. Gentleman is not familiar with it I shall be glad to tell him a great deal about it. The chairman of the committee, like so many other people, has far too many jobs. His secretary does all the work and the chairman never goes to the office.
May I say a word about tanks? I wonder whether it is an exaggeration to say that the reason we have the privilege of fighting for our freedom to-day is that we won the Battle of Britain. How did we win it? Because one man had the courage to break up the machine I have spoken about, cut the red tape, and get production of Spitfires and Hurricanes. He could not have done that by the ordinary method; he had to smash the machine and ruthlessly cut the red tape in order to get production. We got production and won the Battle of Britain, which enables us to fight a bigger battle to-day. Now we want tanks and the Minister is trying to get them in the same way. I am glad to hear that the tanks situation is improved, but what can you make of a system or Department that appoints Sir James Lithgow as chairman of the Tank Board? There was never a greater expert in disorganising the shipbuilding of this country and no greater genius for disorganisation in any industry. That is the gentleman chosen to get the immense output of tanks that is required. Some one must have gone to him and said, "Look here, Jim, old man, if you have a little time to spare look after the tanks," and then they made him chairman of the Tank Board.
I was in a factory where I saw tanks going out. I have been in factories where I have not seen them going out. I saw

them going out with some sense of rhythm. The Tank Board had just gone, for Lord Beaverbrook had sacked the lot. I asked a man at the factory what he thought about the Tank Board and whether he did not think some of them ought not to be taken out and shot. This man replied, "It is difficult for me to express an unbiased opinion because I was a member of the Board." I am glad that Lord Beaverbrook sacked the Board. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the number of cases I have given him I can keep him busy for a quarter of an hour with specific cases.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman has not given me notice of any of his cases, according to the old practice of the House. He has not made them specific enough for me to recognise them. They are all of a very vague kind. Of course, I would be only too willing to receive particulars of cases and do my best to remedy them or answer them, but the House must admit that it is difficult, without notice and with the kind of statements the hon. Gentleman has made, even to recognise many of the cases he has brought forward.

Mr. Edwards: I cannot go into more details in the time at my disposal It is suggested by an hon. Member that Scotland Yard should make inquiries. I had a case where Scotland Yard nearly had to be brought in. In this case the Minister gave me full privilege to go into the matter with his chief inspector. It was a matter that was holding up production. The moment we found the culprits a permanent official came along and had an official inquiry. The matter was taken out of our hands because we were beginning to find things out. I want to mention another thing, which affects another Department. The Ministry of Transport has asked us to save all the haulage we can. There was an abundance of bricks on the Tyne and a shortage on the Tees, 40 miles away We could not move them by road or rail, but we were able to get them from the south of England, 220 miles away. There is a gross wastage of haulage. That is not a matter for the hon. Gentleman's Department, but if there is anybody present from the other Departments I hope that he will give a more satisfactory explanation. It has been said that such things will not be allowed in future without a


special permit, and I hope we shall not hear again of supplies being transported 250 miles when others are available within 40 miles.
In conclusion, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not misinterpret the things which I have said. It is not easy to make it clear; I have tried very hard to pay a tribute to the permanent officials as efficient well-meaning men, but I have said that with the best brains and the best intentions in the world it is utterly impossible to make the machine as it exists reach the speed which is essential if we are to get the things we need. If we do not speed up the machine we shall not get 100 per cent. or even 75 per cent production.

Miss Lloyd George: The House has listened to a startling speech from the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards), who in his capacity as a member of the Committee on National Expenditure has been in a special position to hear evidence which is not open to other back-bench Members. He told us that he disagreed with the estimate of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) who said yesterday that we are not yet up to 75 per cent. of our potential efficiency. In the hon. Member's opinion that is an under-estimate. In many speeches from different Ministers we have been told of the progress made in production. We have been told that we are making twice the number of this, four times the number of that, and even 10 times the number of the other as compared with the position three months ago, or six months ago, or a year ago. The Colonial Secretary told us that there were now twice as many workers in munitions as there were in the last year of the last war. In that year we won the war, which means that the number of workers in industry and the programme they carried out then must have been sufficient for the needs of that time. Otherwise we should not have won the war. No one, not even the Colonial Secretary, suggests that we are in that position to-day.
Perhaps the Minister of Supply has given a more accurate estimate of the situation. He ought to know—ho one is in a better position to know—and he said that we had not yet got steam up. That is the feeling which has been expressed by hon. Members in all quarters of the

House, many of them Members who have been in close touch with industry and have had special opportunities for knowing as members of the Select Committee. The feeling is that the effort we are making, however much greater than it was, is not yet large enough. It is not on a big enough scale, it is not commensurate with our needs, and that, after all, is the only test you can possibly apply to our production programme. There is a sort of feeling that we are not yet in top gear, but are still only in second gear.
The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) said that he and those for whom he spoke felt very doubtful whether the crises of equipment were over. The Prime Minister, in those days when he was in Opposition and made that series of prophetic speeches about rearmament, once said that it was no good expecting an 8-foot plank to bridge a 10-foot gap. Are we sure that the measurements of the plank are large enough even now? Are we sure that it will bridge the gap between British and American production on the one hand and German and Italian production—for what that is worth—on the other? We have been rather apt to under-estimate the strength of our opponents. We are in a far better position to judge now what is the enemy's full strength. We have seen it deployed in Russia. Are we planning so that we can meet on equal terms not only a German force such as is in Libya but a force of such numbers as the Russians have had to meet? That seems to me to be the only test that we can apply. It may be said that the answer to that is this Bill extending conscription. But is it? In itself, it is not an answer at all. Conscription is no substitute for organisation, and it is no use calling up additional man-power and additional woman-power unless we are making full use of the plant and the man-power and the woman-power already available.
During these Debates the opinion has been expressed that we are not making full use of our plants. A trained observed who was sent over here by President Roosevelt specially to study our war production efforts has given it as his opinion that we were not getting the full production of which the plants are capable. We have been told that these plants may be idle as the result of a change-over


in types, and that that applies particularly to aircraft. Such changes in design may be vitally necessary if we are to maintain technical superiority, but it is equally true that we can never gain predominance in the air without mass production, and that will be quite impossible if we are to have constant and meticulous changes. When we are faced with an enemy who believes in mass production, that is an important consideration. Is it not possible to strike a happy medium in this respect? Even in cases where a change in design is necessary, is it also necessary that the plant which has been making the machine should lie idle for long periods of time? I was told the other day of a factory employing hundreds of workers which was making a particular aeroplane. It was decided to stop making that type, and since then that plant and those workers have been idle for weeks, running almost into months. I have particulars of the case and will gladly give them to whoever is going to reply. In cases of that kind is it not possible to see that the workers and the plant are used for other purposes? I believe that in some cases plant has been commandeered and has been used for other purposes. The power exists to-day, but it certainly has not been used to any considerable extent.
It is not only in aeroplanes that change of design holds up work. There are constant changes of design in regard to tank guns, anti-tank guns, field artillery and, above all, in the tanks themselves. Constant change of design in small particulars holds up production, not only here but in America. It is not only this kind of thing which is responsible for holding up production, but bottle-necks of all kinds. These exist not only between various industries and between one Department and another in industry, but actually in the same factory. One factory may be waiting for parts from another factory. The House has been told to-day of instances of workers idle in a number of factories and working short time. In one factory the walls were covered with slogans such as "Guns; more guns needed." In an aircraft factory the slogan was: "Buck up. You only can give them wings." Yet during most of the working hours the workers had been able to produce only an insignificant amount. The hon. Member for Stoke spoke of the need for decentral-

isation. I suppose that the regional boards were first set up to deal with difficulties of the kind I have described as well as with bottle-necks in the Departments. As a matter of fact, they have no executive power. They have to refer back practically every particular to London. That means endless delay. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that decentralisation such as we had in the last war is essential. The boards were a very vital and important part of the production machine during the last war.
Perhaps I might now say a word or two about the calling up of women. We have been told that large numbers of women are to be called up. The hon. Member for Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) spoke of the lack of training facilities. Do we really consider that we are making the best use in the factories of the woman-power available now? I wish I could feel that the women were being utilised to the full. We are always talking about substituting women for men in the factories; has that substitution in fact taken place? Our need for skilled men is great and will increase. Unfortunately, we shall have to face casualties in men and materials in Libya and as the war progresses more skilled men will have to be called up. If the needs of the Armed Forces are to be met as they must be, more skilled labour will be needed in the factories. The substitutes ought to have been trained now. If they are not trained now, they ought to be in training at this moment.
Fully-trained women will not spring out of the brain of the Minister of Labour. Some preparation will have to be made. The fact is that such women are not being trained at the present time upon anything like a sufficient scale. I believe it is more than likely that there will be a very serious bottle-neck in a few months' time in regard to skilled personnel in the factories, and it will hold up production. If there is, the cause will be that we have not a co-ordinated plan to deal with training. Government training centres are nothing like full; their capacity in any case is very limited. Of course, when you get to the back of it, very little training indeed is going on there. One of the great obstacles is to be found in the employers themselves. In some cases, when women enter their factories, they give them the drudgery jobs or the repetition work. There are instances of girls who have been trained at Govern-


ment centres going into factories after training and being put upon completely unskilled work. That is just waste. The other day I learnt that, in 1877, the Birmingham brass-workers, in one of the first trades entered by women, refused to recognise the presumptuous female who turned a lathe in Birmingham. The male workers went so far as to ask Parliament to restrict the women nail-makers to their own sizes of nail.

Viscountess Astor: I bet they did it, too.

Miss Lloyd George: That story sounds as though it came from another age and another world. As a matter of fact, it does not. There are employers, even at this critical moment in our history, who still hold to these prejudices. Women are doing various types of work in industry to-day, from the simplest engineering operations to those involving the very greatest precision and skill. I believe the House will agree that such an attitude as I have referred to is indefensible. I do not see any prospect of these recalcitrant employers undertaking training upon their own initiative, but I hope that the Minister of Labour will put the screw on them. He has power enabling him to bring pressure upon employers. He has inspectors who can withhold labour from the factories if not satisfied that conditions are suitable. He also has powers over Government-controlled factories. If only he would exert those powers there might be a chance of training being undertaken upon an adequate scale.
A further point relates to married women. The Minister of Labour said that the country now needs 1,000,000 married women, and the Prime Minister said yesterday that it is in this class that the Government look for the greatest reserve, to be drawn upon to a larger extent than any other, yet there is to be no compulsion of any sort or kind on that class. If there is to be no compulsion, I hope that the Minister of Labour will use his powers of direction to direct those women into industry or on to the land, as the case may require. The Minister already possesses those powers, and I hope he will use them in cases of married women with no children and no domestic responsibility. To leave out that class of women would prove a very great irritant, and would make the other women, who are being called upon, feel that they are not being treated with justice.
I do not believe that the Minister will get this number of married women unless drastic reorganisation takes place in many directions. I know that the Minister is as conscious as anybody of the difficulties. First of all, a very high percentage of these women have children. We have been told that the children are to be accommodated in nurseries. When we are told that, we might think that the nurseries are ready and waiting, but yesterday I saw it reported in the newspapers that many new nurseries are being provided in the industrial areas, that there are, at present, 172 nurseries, and that another 330 are in various stages of completion. It is hoped that they will be ready early in the New Year, and it is said that others are in preparation. I suppose that, on the average, these nurseries accommodate about 40 children. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has in mind a date by which he needs these women, but it will be a very long time hence indeed at this rate before the nurseries are available. The children will probably be grown up and have families of their own before then. If the women are urgently needed for war production, I suggest that the provision of nurseries is vital and urgent. I know quite well that a 100 per cent. grant has been given to the local authorities and that other measures have been taken, but I believe that, in this case, there must be unified control. One Minister must be responsible for the nurseries; whether it should be the Minister of Health or the President of the Board of Education I do not know, but, at any rate, I am certain that they must be in the hands of one central authority.
I think, too, that our planning must be on a larger scale in another direction, and that is the organisation of industries on a shift basis in order to fit in married women with domestic responsibilities. Wherever appeals have been made for married women to do shift work the response, I am sure the Minister would agree, has been overwhelming. They have been eager to go into the factories, but the shift system is not yet anything like properly organised to accommodate them. The Government are calling upon women to enter into a fuller partnership with men in this struggle. Women do not want special treatment; they do not expect it, but they do expect, and I believe they truly deserve, justice at the hands of the


country and of the Government. I think they should have justice in the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), of compensation for civilian injuries. I think that proper provision should be made for them in the factories in the matter of canteens and in the provision of cloakroom accommodation, which in some cases is really scandalous. I also think that proper provision should be made for them in the matter of transport. I have heard of cases where workers have to travel for three hours in all to get to and from their work. You are certainly not going to get the best out of woman-power if you treat women in that way. The Prime Minister said, in his speech on the Address,
Let it not be said that Parliamentary institutions are being maintained … in an … unreal manner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1941; col. 33, Vol. 376.]
After he had said that, he told us that we might have as many days as we wished to speak in this House on the Address, that we could move Amendments. Then, he ended his speech by saying that, in spite of anything that might be said in this House, the decision had been come to that there should be no change in the form of Government, no change in the organisation of Government, no change in the organisation of production. I do not know whether that is maintaining our Parliamentary institutions in a real manner. I cannot myself feel it is. We have been told that in this House, in the matter of criticism, we have to walk very delicately. I seem to remember that in the last war, for many, many months, pressure was brought upon the Government from all sources to alter the organisation of production. That pressure came from high officers serving with the Army, at that time in France, from Members of this House, and from the public outside. All was done in the most discreet, confidential manner. No one could possibly have said it was against the public interest in any way. The fact remains that as a result of these representations nothing was done, and it was only when public opinion became vocal, when Members of Parliament expressed their views in public, and when the Press spoke its mind, that anything was eventually done.
I conclude with some more words of the Prime Minister, this time from one of

those famous speeches which he made years ago when he was urging the Government in this House to take certain action He said:
Even now, I hope the Members of the House of Commons will rise above circumstances of Party discipline, and will insist upon knowing where we stand in a matter which affects our principles and our lives. I should have thought that the Government"—
and this is the present Prime Minister still speaking—
and, above all, the Prime Minister, whose load is so heavy, would have welcomed such a suggestion.
What a difference it would have made if that advice had been taken at that time. I hope, even to-day, it is not too late. I hope that the House will follow the advice the Prime Minister gave us many years ago in the interests of the country and of the great cause which British men and women are pledged to serve in this hour of peril and challenge.

Viscountess Astor: I think the women have not come off badly in this Debate, and I hope that the House will make a note of it. I think that the person who has really disappointed the House, who has certainly disappointed women more than anyone, is the Prime Minister in his speech. The Prime Minister is a famous speaker, and we are all grateful for his speeches, but I think that the whole womanhood not only of this country but of the Empire will be very disappointed with the speech he made yesterday. It is the first time he has ever had a real chance of making an inspiring speech about women, and he did not take it. All he did was to say that he was forced to compel women to come in and do their duty in the war. I know that the Prime Minister has, for a long time, had a blind eye about women. I do not blame him but I ask the House and the country who has more vision about women's citizenship—the women who fought, with blood and sweat, and died for their citizenship, or the Prime Minister who, even now, does not understand what it is all about? I do not expect the Prime Minister to understand everything. We ought to be very grateful for what he does understand. He has a war complex, and a war mentality—thank Heaven for that. Women have not always had such a mentality—perhaps that is why he does not understand women—but they have all that is needed for the good of the country.


They do not want to be like the men— Heaven forbid that they should; we have enough men already. When they got the vote, they wanted to be something quite different, because they thought that the country needed the two points of view.
Since the war began, only one man, to whom the world listens, has made a speech worthy of the women of this country. That was Mr. Menzies. He made a speech which stirred the women, not only in this country, but in the Empire and in the United States. When the Government are so anxious about their propaganda, they could do a great deal more in letting the world know what the women of this country have done. It has surprised everybody. Mr. Menzies, who was here during a blitz, was astonished by the calm, cool courage of our women. That courage has surprised ourselves. We always knew that we had moral courage, and some, who have hunted and ridden motor bicycles and done things of that sort, knew that women had physical courage. But when the war came, we found that we stood the bombing better, in many instances, than the males did. I am sorry to say that, because we always liked to think that the males were superior in one respect. They have lost that reputation now.
I am not blaming this Government especially for its attitude towards women. It is 22 years last week since I first sat in this House, and during all that time I have watched the behaviour of Governments as far as women are concerned. The women's vote has secured social reforms; There are few people in this House, on either side, who are interested in social reform, but in the country the women wanted it. All Members know that women are probably the best workers in the constituencies. But what happens when they get into the House? It is true one Government made a woman a Minister—I refer to Miss Bondfield—but that was at the worst time in the history of this country. There was no man who could have done Miss Bondfield's job. Then, the next Government made the Duchess of Atholl Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. She made a success of the job, but she was never offered another post. Men fail time after time, and back they come to the Front Bench. Suppose a woman had been made Minister of Information, and she had failed.

Do you think that she would be brought back to the Front Bench, or that she would have been travelling around the Empire now? I say that no Government, and certainly not this Government, has ever understood, or trusted, or even tried to use, women.
There was one man before the war who really had some vision where women were concerned. That was our present Ambassador in Spain, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). He realised that if war were coming, we should have the women organised; and he got them organised, under a woman, in the W.V.S. There are plenty of women in the country doing good jobs, but there is no question of the Government getting them into harness. They do not think in those terms.
I heard the other day in a broadcast, a man say that the reason the women of the country did not join up in greater numbers was that they lacked imagination. I think the Minister of Labour himself said that he treated women as intelligent beings. Let us see whether both these things are true. What about lacking in imagination? The Government lacked imagination in reference to the A.T.S. After they started the A.T.S. in 1938, it took them 10 months to make up their minds what was to be the dependants' allowance. At that time the A.T.S. were organised, as far as the War Office are concerned, by junior officers. They asked for 40,000 and got 30,000. I went to the hon. Member and implored him to have a woman put in charge of this woman's organisation. There had been a woman in charge during the last war and we know that there were 100,000 women in the Services at the end of the last war and that there was no quarrel about them at all. The hon. Member said that some women did not want to join the A.T.S. Women are just like men. All women do not want the same service but we knew that the Government would have to get a woman as head of the A.T.S. She had to correct all the mistakes the men had made. She was a very able woman too. I believe that if that woman had been a man she would probably have been in the War Office now, and I am sorry that she is not. She was got out on the excuse of age. There is room for her and she is a good organiser.
That is the sort of muddle men have made. You are giving the new woman a terrific job to do. This Bill is being brought in partly to deal with the A.T.S., but look at the propaganda. The whole of the recruiting for the A.T.S. is in the hands of a man. I have watched the result of it. It has been a complete failure. It is a very curious thing, but they do not ask some of us who are used to audiences of women—and they might particularly have approached some of the old suffragettes—to help them. They have done it all by themselves, bless their little hearts. Now what has happened? You have to bring in a Bill to compel women to join. It is outrageous that things should have got into this mess and I ask the House seriously to think about the position. You cannot go on treating women as though they are not intelligent human beings and have no ability, and leave the people who have made mistakes to go on making them.
I will take another case, that of the Ministry of Health. Some of us went to the Minister of Health and warned him before the war. We said, "If there is a war you will have to evacuate the children and you must have the whole plan right." We said that it would be difficult, in particular, for children under 5 and we gave him a complete plan. It was turned down entirely, and the same people are still doing the same sort of thing. They have not changed. Everybody has referred to the failure of the Ministry of Health. Is it to go on? Are we to keep on with the same people? You will never get the job done if that is the case. I appeal to the Minister of Labour not to leave the job to "grannies" and "minders," if he wants it done properly. For a Minister of Labour to come forward with the "minders" proposal is enough to make Labour women rise in arms, but they did not. In the counties where you have had "minders" there has been the highest rickets mortality in the whole country. I would have liked to have heard hon. Members from the other side if that had been done by a Tory Minister of Labour. They would have sounded like hounds gone away, yet they have sat down quietly under it. Like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour has not had much vision about women. I collected together business and professional women of this country about 18

months ago because we knew there would have to be more women in industry and because we wanted to get them trained by qualified women who knew how. We went in a deputation to the Minister who told us that as this would be a mechanised war, women would not be needed so much as in the last war.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): indicated dissent.

Viscountess Astor: The Minister knows perfectly well that we pressed him again and again before we could get his Department to wake up to the fact that we would have to use women in thousands and would have to have them properly trained by women. I am not blaming the Minister of Labour; they are all alike on the Front Bench. I would not change the Minister of Labour. It is not because I dislike Ministers that I criticise them. It is the people who do not like them, who criticise behind their backs. One hon. Member spoke about trained women having to go into unskilled trades. I can give the House an instance of a highly skilled woman who is receiving less than her trainees.

Mr. Bellenger: That happens in the Army.

Viscountess Astor: Of course, it happens all round. Who is responsible for this lack of imagination—women or men? It really is the men; but it is the fault of the House of Commons if it continues. Everybody knows that if we are to get the whole woman-power of the country we must make provision for all alike. I am told that the reason the Government will not conscript married women is because the men at the front do not want it. That may be, but the men at the front are not here at the back and do not know and cannot know what are the circumstances. I believe it would be far better if the Government brought in a Bill to conscript every man and woman and every child from the age of 14.

Mr. MacLaren: And land?

Viscountess Astor: Yes, and land if you want it. If children do not go to school or college—and I am not one who wants to stop them, because I think it is important for the country that some children should get secondary or even college education—it means that these children go into industry. We all know the


scandal of children getting into industry and earning enormous wages. If you conscripted them they could go to training centres and be apprenticed to all sorts of trades. They would be far better doing that than they are now. By conscripting younger people you would release older people. I am sure it would be possible. Do not be frightened of the women. They are perfectly willing to do what is best for the country, only they want it done on just lines. With reference to the statement that married women are not to be called on, I know of cases in my constituency and elsewhere which are causing great discontent. You have a married woman without children getting a good allowance and probably living with her mother-in-law.

Mr. Bellenger: From where does she get that allowance?

Viscountess Astor: She gets the marriage allowance.

Mr. George Griffiths: Twenty-live shillings.

Viscountess Astor: That is more than maiden ladies get. Very often the married woman lives with her "in-laws," and has enough to keep herself very well without working, unless she wants to work. But the Government intend to conscript an unmarried woman who may be the sole support of a father or mother; she will have to go into the Army. It is very unfair in comparison with the married women. I do not believe the Government have thought this matter out. The Government talk as though, if married women were conscripted, it would break up homes. But the first thing that happens when war begins is that homes are broken up. There are many homes that are broken up now. Nobody in the world is more old fashioned than I am about women; I think that a woman's place is in the home, if she has children to look after. [Interruption.] Probably I do not spend any more time here than a great many Members' wives and others who have nothing to do except amuse themselves. I do not apologise for my home or public life. I ask the Government to think over their plans again. Their proposals are full of the most appalling anomalies. I have in mind the case of a man and wife

and four children. These people are running a settlement, but they could not do that unless they had a maid to look after their children. They have a very skilled maid looking after their children, and the woman is doing far better work at the settlement than the maid would do if she were conscripted and sent somewhere else. I believe it would be much fairer if there were conscription of girls and women from the time they left school until 30 years of age, with generous exemptions.
There is one more thing I want to ask the Minister of Labour and the War Office concerning the A.T.S. Do they not think it would be a good thing if some time they talked about the wonderful work that is being done on the cooking and domestic side? [Interruption.] They may have talked about it, but let them talk about it more. I have in my hand a cutting from a newspaper, I think it is the "Evening Standard," about the Government and the drink scandal. There is a picture of A.T.S. members sitting in a bar. Do the Government think that will help recruiting? Does the Minister of Labour think that industrial canteens will help? With due respect to the Government, I think they have missed a certain spirit which there is in the country. They always talk down to the people. That applies also to the recruiting campaign for the A.T.S.—Come and have a good time, come and look smart, come and have an adventurous life. I do not believe people in any part of the country want that. Tell the women of the country, "We want you in the factories; it will be a hard job, but the country needs you." Tell the women, with regard to the A.T.S., the truth about things, and do not try to make out that it is something which it is not. I believe the Government have been behind the country from the start to the finish. When the Prime Minister first took office, he could have done anything he liked. There is too much concern about each party having a say. What we want is a lead. There is a spirit in the country, in men and women, that must not be ignored. It is not a spirit that is met by telling people about wet canteens and a good time. That only frightens the mothers. What the Government need to say to women is, "We are giving you the privilege of serving your country in the way


that your husbands and sons serve it." It is not fair to bring forward these proposals and to pretend that the women have not come forward. They have come forward, and, considering what a muddle the men have made, I think it is perfectly astounding that the women have done so well.

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): The proposals before the House represent, not so much a request for additional powers, as a declaration of an intention to go further than ever before in the use of existing powers. As I see it, it is very largely a matter of dotting the i's and crossing the t's of legislation already in force. It is also partly a question of getting in clear terms powers that we thought we had already secured in the legislation passed in the middle of last year, in a time of great crisis, but in regard to which some doubts have since arisen. I propose to leave to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who will be winding up the Debate on the next Sitting Day, all technical questions concerning the organisation and allocation of man-power. What I propose to do is to deal, in the time available, as far as I can with certain aspects of our production problem which are naturally and inevitably raised by the proposals before the House, and to which reference has been made by a number of speakers in the course of this Debate.
Before coming to details, I want to make, in relation to these production matters, three plain and unequivocal statements, so that the House may see clearly where the Government stand in the matter. The first thing I want to say is this. When the Government are planning to deal with men and women as they are now proposing, to put them into the Services and direct them into industry where they will have to give their labour in the manner considered by the Government to be most conducive to the successful development of our war effort, it is clearly incumbent upon the Government to see that everything possible is done to ensure the well-being of the men and women whose services are so directed.
The second matter to which I wish to refer touches a point which was stressed by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George). What a tremendous call, more insistent than ever before,

is being made on the resources of manpower and woman-power still available in the country, it is incumbent upon the Government to see that the machine in which these men and women are to become cogs is made as efficient as is possible. We cannot fairly call upon men and women to make sacrifices, to leave their environment and their home surroundings and to take on new tasks, unless we are prepared to see that those men and women who are already there are put in a position to give service as efficient as they are capable of rendering.
The third thing I wish to say by way of preliminary concerns a matter to which reference has been made in several speeches by hon. Members opposite. It is very far from being the case that the Government, in asking the House to assent to their exercising these wide and drastic powers which they propose to take in regard to the use of human material, are negligent, neglectful or half-hearted in the use of their powers over property. I want to put what I have to say into short and perfectly clear terms. In this matter, in regard both to the use of human material and to the use of private property, winning the war is the sole object. How to do it is the whole test. The Government will not be timid or half-hearted in taking control of any property or undertaking, to whatever extent may be found necessary, if by that means a fuller development of the war effort is realised. I hope to be able to give the House information showing how far we have already proceeded in accordance with that principle.
Coming more to detail, we agree fully that, taking control as we are doing of the lives of men and women, we must make ourselves responsible for their well-being. There are many matters which have had attention, and continue to have attention, but with regard to which further improvement is unquestionably necessary. There is the whole question of the transport of workers, who may have to be engaged far from home, to and from their work. There are serious difficulties because every new passenger transport vehicle that is produced is a competitor with some other form of mechanical transport. The distances that have to be covered and the conditions under which services have to be run also present practical difficulties, but the Minister of War Transport has for months past been study-


ing the problem, particularly acute as it is in certain parts of the country. In South Wales, for example, it is particularly difficult, and I know that there is a great problem in the North-East. Everything that we can conceive of is being done in the way of adapting existing vehicles, bringing back vehicles which have been temporarily laid up, importing vehicles if possible from America and I hope that, in the course of the winter, it will also be possible to get some temporary assistance from the Army. All these matters are dealt with in certain passages in the Twenty-fifth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, published the other day, giving replies to certain criticisms; and the extent to which it is hoped to give relief and to improve conditions of transport is set out there.
Then there is the whole question of feeding arrangements, in regard to which great improvements have certainly been made, but further improvement is still possible. There are the questions of housing, billeting and the provision of hostels. The construction of houses and hostels must inevitably compete with building labour required for other purposes, but still plans have been made and further provision is being rapidly brought into existence. Some of the existing hostels have not proved as popular as we hoped they would be, and we have to consider what can be done to improve matters in that respect. It is partly a question of management and partly a question of getting people to live under conditions with which they are unfamiliar. In regard to all these matters, and in regard to the provision of day-nurseries for the children when married women are called upon to give their service—and they will be required in enormous numbers, working in shifts in a manner which has been shown to be very practical and effective in certain parts of the country— all preparations must be pushed forward.
I pass to the question of planning. A great deal has been said in the course of to-day's Debate and on previous occasions in regard to the need for unified planning. There is a danger of oversimplifying this matter. Nothing is easier than to produce a paper plan, but one must be quite certain that it is not going to remain a paper plan. It is very likely to remain in that stage if you construct it on a priori principles, aiming at

something which may be thought to be the ideal, without proper regard to the necessity for going step by step and building on what you find already in existence. You cannot cut adrift, especially in the middle of a war, and expect to be able to bring into existence something quite new into which everyone will fit readily and hope to get good results.

Mr. MacLaren: Lord Beaverbrook thinks so.

Sir J. Anderson: There have been a great many criticisms in regard to the state of our production. We have been told of cases where the flow of material has been interrupted and, as a result, workers have remained idle. I had occasion not long ago to investigate one such case. What I found was, I should think, typical of a good many instances. This was the case of a small factory somewhere in the South-East which was concerned with the production of finished shells. There had been a hold-up in the factory for a week or 10 days. The explanation was very simple. They were dependent in the factory upon a steady supply of fuses, and, owing to a period of very bad weather when the fuses could not be tested, there was a shortage. As a result, there was for the time being no work for a certain number of the operatives in the factory. I asked at once whether provision was not made in such cases for employing the operatives on something else. I was told that in normal circumstances that would be so. It happened, however, that in this factory, which was concerned in one process only, there was nothing else to which the workers could immediately be transferred. I then said, "Can you not make arrangements in such circumstances for employing operatives elsewhere?" I was told, "Yes, arrangements are in existence for transferring operatives in such a case, but we have not found it convenient or efficient to move them when the period of inactivity is unlikely to amount to more than a few days or a week." Then I asked, "Is there no way of anticipating such difficulties?" The only way, I was told, was by increasing the storage capacity available for the finished fuses, and that was being done.
That was an illustration—and I have no doubt that it could be multiplied—where, through unforeseen circumstances, work was temporarily held up. It was not due


to slackness, inefficiency or lack of foresight, except that the factory had not been planned many months ago with additional storage capacity. With regard to that particular criticism about temporary hold-ups due to the failure of some component or some material to come along in steady flow, it is easy to maintain balanced production at a somewhat low level, but when you get to the point at which you are striving to get the maximum output or response from every factory, the risk of a temporary hold-up is very much greater.
I read with much interest a speech delivered in the course of the Debate on the Gracious Speech from the Throne by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster), and I refer to it because what he said was very relevant to the matters with which I am dealing now. He spoke of the necessity for unified planning, and went on to stress the importance of getting out promptly what he called "operational orders." In that respect he was, I fear, rather oversimplifying things. I do not think that in the field of production one can picture a man of vision and strong resolution sitting down and mastering all the details of a problem in the course of a few hours and then delivering clear and concise instructions which every one concerned can carry out forthwith. Let me tell the House of my own experience in a matter which I have had to deal with recently. I had to consider the arrangements in connection with our programme for producing heavy and medium bombers. The matter was handled, I think, with reasonable promptitude, and it passed through various well-marked stages. In the first place, after a review of strategical considerations, a target was specified, a target which contemplated the production over a given period of so many machines and the attainment at the end of that period of a certain monthly output. The monthly output is very important, because upon that depends the number of machines that can be kept continuously in the air. After the target had been named various factors of production had to be examined in detail. Raw materials— what bottlenecks would be likely. Highly specialised plant—what additions were likely to be necessary. Machine tools— was the existing supply likely to be sufficient. Then there were questions of

factory accommodation and finally of labour. When all these factors had been measured and assessed and a time-table had been drawn up, then that particular picture had to be looked at as part of the whole production picture of the country; and only at that stage, then and then only, after a great deal of necessarily detailed work had been carried out, was it possible to issue operational orders.
It is the same story all along the line. This unified planning, however necessary it may be—and I am not for a moment denying the necessity of it—can never be quite the simple business which one man of resolution and foresight can deal with in the course of a forenoon. Let me add that, even when you take every precaution to ensure that there shall be no breakdown anywhere, circumstances which were quite unforeseen may arise at any moment to necessitate a drastic remodelling of your plan, and therefore you must beware of making it too rigid. Events in Russia led to demands, which we met and shall continue to meet, but they have involved a very serious readjustment of our existing plans. I say these things to make it clear to the House that whatever view may be held about this business of production it cannot be reduced to very simple terms.
I am not for a moment going to suggest that everything is as it should be. I am not going to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey is wrong in saying that we have not yet attained our maximum effort. Of course not. If we had, we should not be coming forward with these proposals. But, after all, what has been done, and a great deal has been done already, has been compressed into a comparatively short space of time as these things go. I say to the House quite frankly that I, in my limited experience —I am not an expert in these matters— can see various directions in which improvements have to be, and must be, made. References have been made to the Reports of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which have rendered most useful service in calling attention to various matters of detail. These matters have had, as they deserved, the attention of the Departments, and that will, I know, continue.
I will admit at once that, for example, the distribution throughout industry of skilled labour is not yet what it should


be. It is very unequal, but steps are being taken to make readjustments. That is something of which the need is fully realised. I am sure that the House will be glad of that assurance. It is undoubtedly the case that dilution has not been carried nearly as far as it must be, nor is it by any means uniform. We want all these additional women in industry, not only to meet the requirements of expanding industry, but to release men for work which only men can do. Then there is the matter of double and even treble shifts. There is room there for further progress. Another matter of the very greatest importance is delegation. We have Regional Boards, to which very wide powers were entrusted during the last war. I do not think we have gone as far this time in delegating powers to these Boards as we did during the last war. I want to see more effective power given to them, and as much delegation as may be found practicable.
I pass to another aspect of this subject, the question of the effectiveness of Government control of the various agencies called upon to collaborate in our production effort. Is this control by the Government as effective as it should be?

Mr. S. O. Davies: Is it control at all?

Sir J. Anderson: I wonder whether the House realises how far that control goes. Take raw materials; whatever they may be, the control of them is very thorough and complete. It covers production, distribution, prices and profits. I do not know how much further control can go. When you pass from raw materials to the finished article, of necessity the control cannot be so close, because it is not easy to standardise designs and specifications of complicated finished articles, but there again there is very close control. And in the end, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all his machinery, comes into play to deal with any profits that may be made.
It is suggested that it is a weakness that these controls are exercised by men drawn from the industry concerned. I wonder whether that is really so. There is, in this country, a strong tradition of public service of which we cannot be too proud, It is part of our national life and of our heritage. It is something of which I, as

an old Civil servant, am very proud. I have never found, in a long experience, that men drawn from private enterprise and given specific public responsibilities have failed to respond to the trust reposed in them. I think sometimes there is even a danger of their dealing rather too severely with the interests with which they have been connected.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that they are sometimes paid by the firms?

Sir J. Anderson: I am speaking in general terms; I do not think it makes very much difference. In all my experience I have not found that such control is ineffective, and it has the great advantage that it makes use of resources which would otherwise be wasted. We cannot find Civil servants everywhere, even if a Civil Servant as such has had the necessary experience.
In the few minutes that remain to me I will turn to the third of the main points on which I made a declaration at the outset of my remarks. I am aware of the feeling that exists in certain quarters of this House and outside that the Government are more ready to take and to exercise powers to enable them to deal with human material than they are to exercise the powers they already possess to deal with property. I am not, as the House knows, a party politician. [An HON. MEMBER: "You picked a Tory seat."] I did not pick it. [Interruption.] I have, I confess, found it a little difficult, as an intellectual exercise, to follow all the arguments advanced on this subject. I can myself see no very close parallel, nor on the other hand any very clear antithesis, between what is called the conscription of labour and the conscription of wealth. It seems to me rather a false dichotomy. I do not think the categories are mutually exclusive. I find that in practice people who have wealth also have services to render, services that can be called upon. I find also that a considerable proportion—and I think it is a fortunate circumstance—of the people of this country who will be rendering services under the Bill which we propose to introduce will also be persons who have a certain amount of property at their disposal. Not all property is equally valuable for the purposes of the war


effort. I do not think that things like "old masters," or even wine and cigars, should be objects of envy these days. As I have said, there is only one aim— to win the war; there is only one test— how are we to win it? The Government will not be half-hearted in taking control of any property or of any undertaking, to whatever extent may be found necessary, if by that means a fuller development of the war effort is realised.

Mr. MacLaren: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? You are conscripting the life and blood of this nation to defend the land of this nation. I want to ask the Government whether, when this war is over and we have defended this land against the encroaching hand of Hitler, this land is to go back to the private owners, or whether it is to become the property of those who have defended it?

Sir J. Anderson: I was dealing with the question of winning the war and how to do it.

Mr. MacLaren: But is the land to go back to those people again?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a question which surely can be debated at any time. Let me tell the House in a few words what has already been done. Under the Defence Acts all persons may be required —I quote—
to place their property at the disposal of His Majesty as may appear to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the Realm, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of the war.
Those kinds of property which we have required for the prosecution of the war, we have in fact taken under that Act and other emergency legislation. Privately-owned American and other securities have been vested in the State. The American viscose business of Courtaulds was taken in the same way. The American businesses owned and conducted by a large number of important British firms have been pledged as a security for a £100,000,000 loan which we have obtained from the United States to meet war commitments there. Similarly, we have vested Dominion and Indian (securities, the proceeds of which

have been required to defray war expenditure. The State has exercised freely its power to requisition under these Acts any other kind of privately-owned property, land, plant, shops, goods in great variety. We have put whole sections out of business. The metal brokers for example, have nothing whatever to do. The Government have monopolised practically the whole business. And land, raw materials, food, practically everything, have been taken over by the Government, wherever necessary for war purposes, to the exclusion of private enterprise.
In addition, the income and profits of property, since liquid, are of more use to the State than the property itself, so that in many cases the Government have not taken the property but have dealt very drastically with the income. The result of all this is that those who derive their income from business profits have received treatment widely different from that of wage-earners. The earnings of the wage-earning community—I merely state it as a fact—have, during the war, gone up by something like 42 per cent. The returns of companies' earnings, on the other hand, show that business profits, after deduction of taxes, are, in terms of money, at least 20 per cent. less than before the war. These facts should be known. These facts go to prove my case that the Government have not hesitated. I think that should be borne in mind. Whatever other measures may be necessary in furtherance of the war effort will be taken, and taken without hesitation. In conclusion, may I say this? My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey asked a simple question. She asked, "Are we planning to meet the enemy on equal terms?" My answer to that is this: We are: planning to use all our resources in men, women, materials and organisation to beat the common foe.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — RENT AND LAND SALES (SPECULATION).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Grimston.]

Mr. Stokes: I know that I should not be in Order in continuing the discussion just ended, but it so happens that the point to which I am going to refer is the very one which the Lord President of the Council has skirted round in the concluding remarks he has been addressing to the House. I have given specific notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer —I regret he has found it impossible to be present, but I understand that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is here—to raise the issue of speculation and the wrongful, to my mind, racket going on in rent and land sales at the present time. I gave notice, in Questions last week, of two specific instances in my own constituency.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now Adjourn."— [Mr. Grimston.]

Mr. Stokes: The first refers to a farm outside my constituency, the rent of which was fixed, after the outbreak of war, at £26. It was a mean agricultural land, but a speculator came into the market and bought it for £3,600, thereby only obtaining on his money something in the order of 14s. per cent. In another case, the rental was £126 net, and the land was bought up by a foreigner for £10,000. The return on that money was something of the order of 1 per cent. The Government have told us that they have taken control of the land. I fail to see where they have done that, and wherein they have adequately protected the farming community and the urban community from the evil results of this form of speculation. The contention may be that these people want the land because it is a sound investment. I have no shadow of doubt about that. It cannot be that they are buying this land at such a high price merely for the monetary return to be obtained from its agricultural value, 1 per cent. or less. The evil for the town of Ipswich is that when the town wants land

after the war, we are going to be held to ransom by people who have purchased the surrounding countryside. I could quote cases from all over the country, but it is not necessary. Every Member who is interested in the subject is aware of cases around his own constituency.
There are two points to which I wish to call attention. The first is the evil of speculation. Here is the second: I have pursued the Chancellor over a period of time trying to get him to agree that any increase in rent shall be subject to Excess Profits Tax. The Lord President of the Council has just told us that the Government are seeing that there is equal sacrifice. While it may be true that some people with very high incomes are now taxed at 19s. 6d., no steps are taken to prevent the landlords from benefiting from enhanced rents. The answer given to me the other day was that the Minister of Agriculture had taken the necessary steps to prevent the sitting tenant being forcibly ejected. That is true in some cases, but another evil arises to which I will refer in a few minutes. The answer was an evasion of the whole point. It is not only private individuals who are guilty in this matter, but the Crown itself. Here is a case where the opening words in an auctioneer's advertisement are:
A great opportunity for investors, speculators and others. …
This was the caption on behalf of the Crown. The property was:
an attractive freehold property in its own grounds. …
It is a thoroughly bad example for the Government at this stage to be advertising their property for sale by a practice generally to the disadvantage of the nation. May I explain for the benefit of anybody who does not understand, some of the pernicious effects of the absence of Excess Profits Tax under the present system? While it is true, as far as land is concerned, that a landlord purchasing land cannot eject a sitting tenant, that is not the case of the landlord with a sitting tenant. He can, and does, browbeat the tenant to pay a higher rent rather than pay away the profits which he, the tenant, now gets from stabilised prices in Excess Profits Tax to the Government. The effect of it, with the price regulation, is that it must surely in the end lead to that very vicious spiral which we all seek to avoid. The


effect of putting up the rent is that the farmer in the end must insist upon higher prices, the effect of which will mean that higher wages will be wanted by the workers, and so the merry-go-round goes on and we merely achieve what we set out to abolish.
Another objection which I have to the practice which is going on widely all over the country is that people who have never had the slightest interest in agricultural land are taking advantage of the present position and buying up land at high values merely for the sake of finding a convenient funk-hole for their money and so putting themselves in a more secure position at the end of the war than they otherwise would do, having regard to the fact that many of us expect that the devaluation of money is absolutely certain and inevitable. I do not see why they should be allowed at the present time to take advantage of the national emergency. It is said—and I have also heard the Minister of Agriculture say it—that the present sitting tenants are protected. I have a complete case here, which I have referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and which he has promised to investigate, of a farmer in Berwickshire. It is a dairy farm which was up till quite recently let at £260 a year. The landlord, on the expiration of the tenancy, gave notice to the sitting tenant that the rent would be increased to £423. That is exactly where the subsidy on milk goes; it goes straight into the pockets of the landlord the moment he can get an opportunity to put up the rent. It is ridiculous of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Agriculture to think that the sitting tenant or the farmer is protected by the steps they have already taken.

Mr. MacLaren: We conscript men and women to defend them.

Mr. Stokes: I am coming to that in a minute. I have three short suggestions to make, and I know that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary does not want to reply. He has told me that, owing to unforeseen circumstances, he has only just had notice of the facts. He will admit that it was not my fault, but I am hoping to extract the faithful assurance from him that, although when I finish he will not reply fully to the Debate, I have his complete sympathy and that he has now become

a convert to the taxation of land values. If I succeed in that, I shall not grudge the fact that the answer is so short. It will give others an opportunity of rubbing in the point I have endeavoured to put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has reminded me that every commodity in the country except land is now more or less controlled. It is true that the Government can take such land as they require at a certain valuation, but they pay good hard cash for it. It is no use their saying that they are paying fair prices, because I can quote literally thousands of cases where they are paying prices which are altogether abominable, and are merely pouring away the wealth of the country into the pockets of people who have hitherto done nothing to deserve it. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture, when introducing his Bill the other day, said it was necessary simply because landlords had run out on their duty to the nation and that the only way was to buy them out, so penalising ourselves with debt for their lack of citizenship.
I want to suggest that the Excess Profits Tax be charged on all increases of rents, and that there should be no sales above pre-war valuation. The Government now claim that when purchasing land they will not pay more for it than a valuation—which was never taken—of 31st March, 1939. Exactly how they will operate that I could never understand, and no Minister of the Crown has even had the decency to try and explain how it will be operated. How can they operate a valuation which was never taken? There should be some sort of equality of sacrifice and determination that we will not allow people to buy up land in the way they are doing now. I also suggest that Regulations should be introduced to prohibit the sale of agricultural land, except for genuine agricultural purposes. This is the sort of thing that is happening. This case relates to a place called Saltoun, in East Lothian, where farms have been farmed by one family, on a tenancy, for some 82 years. The owner of the land never took the slightest interest in it except for the purposes of the shooting rights to enjoy himself, and lived away down in Wales. Now he has decided that he would like to farm the land, and take advantage of the stabilisation of prices and the war profits that are to be made as the result of this fixa-


tion of prices and the Regulations which the Government have introduced. He may know nothing about farming himself, but he has evicted the whole of the tenants. I do not call that effective control of the land, and I fail to see how the Lord President of the Council can do so, however far he likes to stretch his very elastic imagination.
In conclusion, I want to say that we are now talking about the conscription of women, and I ask this question in connection with the land. Are we to conscript women in order that they, their children and their husbands shall fight to defeat Hitler and then return to land which is held up against them for ever? Are we fighting this war for the landlords, because that would appear to me to be the case? It is quite time the Government introduced legislation both to deal with rising rents and to prevent speculation in the purchase and sale of land at the present time. Unless they do so, we shall be faced with a continuation of a practice which is wholly pernicious and unfair and quite contrary to the spirit of equality of sacrifice about which we hear so much— a practice fundamentally unsound and morally wrong.

Mr. Tinker: I want to reinforce the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr- Stokes), because I was present when Questions were put to the Chancellor, and I am surprised that this kind of thing should be allowed to go on in time of war. We lead our people to believe that no excess profits are being made, yet we are told this is going on and that the Chancellor does not seem to have power to stop it. If that is so, we should ask the Chancellor to see that he gets hold of some of these excess profits. When people have bought some of this land and there is any question of taking some of it over at the end of the war for the country, they will say, "I bought this land, and I am entitled to a return on my money." It would be a sound argument for people who had invested money to say, "I have expended so much money on land which I thought was of value. I was allowed to do it, and, therefore, I am entitled to repayment of my purchase price, with some profit."
Although it may not happen during the war, I look forward to the time when the State will own the land. That is what

we are fighting for. We are not fighting so that at the end of the war landlordism will be able to put its hand on the lives of the people. If we allow the state of affairs which my hon. Friend has described to go on, it will mean that the State will be almost entering into a pact with these people and saying to them, "We agree with what you are doing and we will see that you will not lose on the bargain in the end." I trust we shall be able to get some assurance from the Financial Secretary. If he cannot give us an assurance, the matter will not rest where it is. We are not going to agree with the Government conscripting human life to defend property and land and at the same time allow this kind of thing to go on. We are expected to defend before the people what is now happening, to tell them that the country is in danger and that they are fighting for their lives and existence, and yet at the same time, landlordism with all its vast influence is to go on. People are to fight to save the land and others are to get the profits from it. That has to be stopped. The Government had better be warned that we will not rest until some change is made in that system. If persuasion will not bring about that change, we shall have to alter our ways and challenge everything that comes from the benches opposite until something is done.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I do not wish to be discourteous to the House, but I am afraid my reply must in the nature of things be rather brief. The vista which was opened up by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is one that no doubt could be discussed at great length, as it has been in the past and presumably will be in the future. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be present, and I am at a double disadvantage in that it appears that the Lord President of the Council made some reference to these topics during the time I was in attendance on the Chancellor at the very meeting which prevents him from being here. Therefore, I do not know what has been said here, and I have to be rather careful, because in this matter as in all others the Government's heart beats as one.
The hon. Member has raised this matter before at Question Time, and from long experience in the House I think that


what is really intended on a short Adjournment discussion arising out of a Question is that the Minister who answered the Question should expand the reply which he gave rather than embark upon something quite different, such as a discussion of the taxation of land values, which the hon. Member, not at all surprisingly, brought into his speech. The hon. Member will remember that, with two or three other hon. Members who hold the same views, he came to see me in a deputation on that subject about a year ago. We had a very friendly talk, and all that he said received the consideration which I promised at that time, although he will be the first to agree that there has been no visible result up to now. There may not be for a century or more; at any rate, it will not be at this moment.
As I understood the Questions that were asked and what the hon. Member has said in his speech, he is really perturbed by the fact that it may be possible for someone or other to sell some of his land at a larger price than it stood at when he bought it, or inherited it, or when it was previously valued, and that no Excess Profits Tax is charged on the transaction. I think that is really the background. We will deal with the matter in two stages— first of all in the case of selling, and, secondly, in the case of a rental charge being increased. The hon. Member was good enough, and I noted it with pleasure, to make some reference to the powers with which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has recently clothed himself to prevent a sitting tenant being turned out. This power came into force only within the last month.

Mr. Stokes: It refers to new purchasers only.

Captain Crookshank: Of course, in regard to sitting tenants in ordinary holdings, there is a whole mass of legislation already on the Statute Book which is not affected. This is a case of a sitting tenant where there is a purchase now, and the Minister has taken power to deal with that. To that extent the position has been changed compared with the position in September when my hon. Friend first raised the matter. Therefore, he can, if he likes, take some credit for it, although there are other people who would also take credit for having brought about this desirable result. On the question of a

sale, the broad distinction with regard to the Excess Profits Tax is this: It is not the same thing to be a person whose activities in life are to deal constantly in the buying and selling of land, for which purpose certain organisations exist. There is a distinctiveness between such a person and a person who engages in selling a piece of land which he already possesses —in other words, the difference between a dealer in land and the seller of a small parcel of land.

Mr. MacLaren: When an individual is selling land, is he dealing in it?

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. There are certain people whose business it is to make these transactions, who have a regular organisation for the purpose, and others who just sell a piece of land off their estate. It is the difference between the business of a person who is always buying and selling Georgian teapots, and the hon. Member finding a Georgian teapot in his cupboard, which has been left him by his greatgrandfather, and taking it to Christies' to sell it. I imagine that there is the same sort of thing in regard to land. If a person's business is to buy and sell land, and there is an organisation for the purpose, that person is liable to Excess Profits Tax. That is different from the case of a man who sells a parcel of land and who is not subject to Excess Profits Tax.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Financial Secretary define the business or trade of a landlord? What is the trade or business of a landlord? Is it selling and buying land?

Captain Crookshank: I am not dealing with the trade and business of a landlord, but the trade and business of buying or selling land, where the Excess Profits Tax obviously comes in. When it comes to an individual selling a parcel of his land, then that transaction is not within the present scope of the tax. After all, the Excess Profits Tax is on the Statute Book, and we have to administer it as passed by this House. I am merely trying to expand the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member. Of course, there may be borderline cases, and, for all I know, the cases quoted in this Question may have been borderline cases, but there I am in this difficulty that, by a very long process, which I should be the last


to wish to break, either in this or any other matter of the same kind, the confidentiality of a particular taxpayer's position is quite secure, and it would not be right for a Treasury Minister to answer on behalf of the Inland Revenue what tax this or that seller of land paid. If we once started disclosing in this House the tax position of individuals, that would be a very grave error. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of judgment."] Not only of judgment. I was thinking of the point of view of getting in the tax, which is even more important as far as the Inland Revenue is concerned. The tax position of anyone, whether a Member of the House or not, must be kept in any circumstances a confidential matter.

Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that this is the only country in Europe which takes that view or has ever taken it, and that in some parts of the world the Income Tax lists are as much open to inspection by the public as rating and valuation lists?

Captain Crookshank: That may or may. not be, but there is a great deal to be said for our system. We are a great country, and the fact that other people deal with these matters in another way is no reason why we should. Up till now that has always been a confidential matter between the tax-gathering section of the State and the individual taxpayer, and I am not going to make a breach at this time of day. With regard to the particular cases quoted by the hon. Member, I would not tell him, even if I knew, but the general proposition is that Excess Profit Tax is payable when it is a case of someone who deals in land professionally but is not payable when it is an individual transaction.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. and gallant gentleman deal with excess profits on rents?

Captain Crookshank: Rents are in very much the same position. If the letting of land is on such a scale as to constitute a trade or business, say a property-holding company, under Excess Profits Tax law, Section 12 (4) Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939,

Where the function, or the main function, of an incorporated company or society is the holding of property, the holding of property is in itself deemed to be a business.
It follows, therefore, that such a company which has its properties let is within the scope of the charge. On the other hand, an individual landlord who has property let to tenants would not normally be regarded as carrying on business by reason of his ownership of property, and that is where the distinction comes between the two. The hon. Member says— and for all I know there may be a lot on his side of the argument—that this is an exceptional case which ought to be dealt with differently, and indeed during the Debates on the Excess Profits Tax we have had that aspect put from other points of view. I have been dealing with this tax since it first came within the purview of the House—and there were Amendments suggesting that the tax should cover increased profits in professions, excess income, and even the case where employees and workpeople were getting more than at a standard date. Up to now neither have the Government been willing to father Amendments of that kind nor, if they did, has the House as a whole shown any desire to adopt that line. I do not know what the future may hold, but, seeing that so far the Excess Profits Tax has been deliberately restricted to trades or businesses—and that is the case, whether it is agreeable to the hon. Member or not—it is impossible to bring within its scope what he would like to do, and that is the casual sales of parcels of land where there has been, as he says, an enhanced value coming into the seller.

Mr. Stokes: Any other business except the trade or business of a landlord.

Captain Crookshank: No. The hon. Member goes round and round. I thought I had made it clear that the trade or business of buying and selling land—

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.